and we then return every dollar of the fee to the american people. that could include transition assistance for coal workers and dmsessence for communities far from coal mines, like in rhode island, facing these costs of climate change. it's also becoming increasingly clear that a revenue-neutral carbon fee will spur innovation, create jobs and boost the economy nationwide. so it's time to end the polluters' holiday from responsibility. it's time to see through their fanciful war on coal, and protect those facing the effects of coal's war on us and coal's war on the truth. it's time to seize the economic

benefit of a clean energy economy. it is time to wake up. i yield the floor to my friend, the distinguished senator from louisiana. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, senator. i'm so happy to follow him on the floor today and some to see him again. we've worked together on so many important issues, mr. president, wonderful to see you and to be back on the floor. i come today for a very special reason. i am so proud to present to the senate a package of lands bills that have been included in the defense authorization act. and what's significant about this particular package is it's quite large and it's the first package in almost six years, in almost three congresses which is

quite an accomplishment for our committee. and i am so proud of the staff of our committee, energy and natural resources. i made this a priority when i took over as chair nine months ago. it was a long shot to see if we could put any package at all together. it had eluded us for several congresses but i worked very closely with my counterpart, congressman hastings in the house, we met on several occasions with our top staff and committed to do all we could to see what was possible. one of the important principles, mr. president, that made this grand compromise possible -- and there are republican bills and democratic bills. it's very well-balanced as between the parties, but also geographically in projects. and expansions of parks, creation of new parks, land

transfers. the principles that we followed is it's revenue neutral. some of these bills raise money, some of these bills spend money, and so it is revenue neutral. the taxpayer is going to get i think some extraordinary value in the package that is being presented today. in addition one of the principles that i pushed very strongly is to make sure that this package included opportunities for the development of our natural resources. we are very proud of our wilderness areas, we're very proud of our parks, we're very proud of our areas that are sort of off-limits to economic development, but there are parts of the federal landscape, public lands that should be developed, whether it's forest or oil and gas or hardrock mining, for the benefit of the taxpayer and for our overall economy. that was a very important

principle for me and, of course, for congressman hastings. we also wanted to make sure that we expanded our national parks. again, this has been a six-year hiatus, almost three congresses we have not been able to make any progress on adding to the beautiful heritage areas and special national park system that america is known for and helped to pilot for the world. this is the 100th year of the land and water conservation act, and we're excited -- i'm sorry, of the national park service and we're excited about the additional eight new national parks that would be created by this lands package, and it expands the boundaries of six existing national parks. and one of the expansions that i want to note particularly is in texas, in san antonio.

it expands a national park to include the san antonio missions. the reason i'm excited about this is because the san antonio missions are next on the list in the united states sites to be designated as a world heritage site. i had a great opportunity to help our only site in louisiana, poverty point, achieve that designation just a few months ago. and what an extraordinary -- just action it was and to be there when we cut the ribbon on a site that is going to continue to be excavated that we believe is over 3,500 years old with a very sophisticated native american settlement on these beautiful raised mounds in one of the highest points in the louisiana and mississippi delta area. and i was excited to see that

san antonio missions will be next. this puts these sites on the same level as the grand canyon and other really extraordinary international places of cultural significance. so that is one example. in the new national parks it's also finally it's only taken us 200-something-plus years for senator carper and senator coons to get a national park in delaware. they were the only state without a national park. although they're small in size, they're very important and as they are the first state in the union and so as it would be appropriate, the name of their park is the first state national park. so now every state in the united states has at least one national park, and, of course, some states have many more, and our commitment is to continue this great heritage for our nation

for generations to come. this package represents a major milestone in our work to reach a consensus across party lines. we will clear much of the backlog of the public lands bill that has built up in the senate. our last passed in the omnibus public lands package five years ago and it's worth noting the congressional budget office as i said again, has scored this as revenue neutral. let me speak for maintenance about a few louisiana priorities. although most of these bills do not have anything to do with the state of louisiana, we did not have any major expansion efforts of any of our parks to present, we did -- i did want to discuss two important provisions that will have a meaningful impact on the economy and people of my state. the first provision will ensure the economic vitality and viability of the toledo bend

hide owe electric estrogen located on the beautiful is a bean river on -- sabine on the louisiana-texas border. it provides power to thousands of homes and serves as an economic engine for our western border with texas. the project was first licensed in 1963 by russell long and our donald delegation was instrumental in getting this dam for hydropower established in our state, although we're known for oil and gas, we do have some hydropower in our state. it was relicensed in august, i'm proud of, with my support and leadership for an additional 50 years. which is a terrific certification on the part of the federal government that this project is fulfilling its original -- original goals and objectives. not only is it generating power, it's generating

extraordinary recreational opportunity. this project includes a dam which impounds 185,000-acre reservoir, the largest manmade body of water in the south and a powerhouse capable of generating 81 megawatts of electricity. the project is operated primarily for water supply purposes and secondarily for hydropower, and thirdly for recreation. but it's become an extremely popular recreational site both on the texas side, mr. president, and on the louisiana side. and it's an interesting project because we have joint jurisdiction, if you will, texas commission runs its side, the louisiana commission runs our side. and it occupies about 3,800 acres of federal land in a narrow three-foot strip along the shore of the reservoir where

it borders the sabine national forest and indian mounds. under current law because of the three-foot strip the forest land and other federal agencies was claiming jurisdiction just because of this narrow edge, if you will, around the toledo bend. so we eliminated their jurisdiction, we worked it out with them. it gives the federal energy regulatory commission the basis to impose annual charges. we didn't think that would be fair, so we carved out a much-needed exemption that will prohibit undue regulation and allow the local governmental structures and appropriate federal agencies to determine the best use of this land. local zoning ordinances will apply, local rules about what areas can be developed privately and publicly. there are plenty of public access to this reservoir, and we hope and i anticipate that it

will be another momentum builder for the economic development in this region and significantly for me, i've worked on it for many, many years because i've been aware of this since i was a legislator years ago and the real need to develop this as a really first-class destination for resorts, hotels, marinas, not only for the people that live and have property there but for visitors that may come from all over the region. but in addition, mr. president, fort polk is situated only about probably 40 miles so it's within driving distance for soldiers, their families, for recreation, and it's really quite beautiful. it's isolated, we don't have quite enough highway infrastructure for us i think to develop it in the way we really should, but that will come with time. but this was a very important

step to get the sabine -- the 50 year certification to move forward, and now our local communities, the parishes of sabin, deceit can dream or and plan how this area can be developed. the second louisiana-related provision authorizes the national park service to study areas along the lower mississippi avenue in plaqueman parish for potential addition to the national park system. it's just a study but this area is rich in cultural history, it was first traveled by spanish explorers in the 1600's and in 1699 was the first fortification on the lower mississippi river known as fort mississippi. the area to be studied includes several fortifications including fort st. phillip which played a

derole in the battle of new orleans and was the final major battle of the war of 1812. while jordan jackson's forces were successful on land it was william overton's defense of the back door to new orleans that helped sealed seal the american victory. fort phillip and fort jackson also played a pivotal role in the siege of new orleans in the civil war. these forts held the union navy at bay for 12 days and the history goes on and on. these special places are a tangible link to the dramatic stories of our nation's history and deserve to be studied for inclusion in our national park system. let me just underscore again how important i think the principle of developing our public resources in the right ways, preserving what we can, conserving what we must, but developing what we can for the

benefit of the taxpayer. that is one of the underlying principles of this grand compromise. i recognize that to break the logjam particularly with the house of representatives we needed to find a way to address both. the development of natural resources and conservation and preservation as well as the expansion of our public lands and public parks. this package reflects that balance. let me mention a couple of the economic development provisions. we will convey 70,000 acres in the tongass national forest to see alaska to complete its land settlement under the alaska native claims settlement act. this legislation has been a long-standing priority for senator begich and senator murkowski. i want to thank them both for their extraordinary leadership in working on this land transfer. this bill has been considered in

the energy and natural resources committee for years, and the final language was carefully negotiated with the department of agriculture so i want to thank the department for helping us work out this really extraordinary land transfer. another provision included at the request of senator mccrane and senator flake and has been worked on by the whole arizona delegation is a land exchange in arizona between the forest service and the resolution copper company to allow the development of a major copper mine. my friend trent franks has been a leader in this area as well. it's his -- in the house. it's his legislative district and i've had good conversations with him. it's going to be the deepest copper mine in the united states of america. it's going to be one of the richest in the world.

there was some original language in this legislation that was perhaps not as -- it was perhaps not as responsible as it should have been or as sensitive, is maybe a better word, to summon the needs or requests of some of the native tribes. we've tried to address some of their concerns in the final language. we haven't, of course, settled all complaints, but we've settled as many as we can. this is an extraordinarily valuable asset for the people of the united states. and the people of the united states own this land, and right now own the potential copper that will come out of this mine. i most certainly through my staff have insisted and been negotiated that the taxpayers get a fair exchange, that they are not underpaid in any way in this transfer and in this development.

i am very hopeful that the forest service, which will continue under the authorization in this bil bill to negotiate, l make sure that the taxpayers of the united states are paid fairly for the exchange of this very valuable property, which will create many jobs in arizona, which will create opportunities for economic development in our whole country and around the world, as copper is a very valuable substance. but one of my overriding conditions for approval was to make sure that the taxpayers got a full benefit. while the alaska and resolution copper provision have received attention, it contains many other conveyances all of which will allow for seam tears or schools or provide land for

development by local communities, allow for out-duke recreational opportunities and increase management efficiencies for both public and adjacent private land. the package also wonderfully includes almost 250,000 acres of new wilderness designations in washington state. i want to thank senator cantwell and senator murray for their advocacy, of course for their state but for our nation. senator tester has been a strong proponent for the state of montana. the state of nevada, the state of colorado, senator bennet and senator mark udall, and of course in new mexico we've had some expansion of wilderness areas. each of these bills was the product of years of discussion among effective stakeholders and each state's congressional delegation. in addition to wilderness designations, the package would protect a watershed of over

360,000 acres of national forest lands adjacent to glacier national park, would designate over 200,000 forest service and b.l.m. lands in montana as the rocky mountain front conservation heritage area, and protect over 70,000 acres of hamosa creek watershed in colorado. among the eight new national parks are two in maryland and new york that celebrate the life of hair ye harriet tubman, knowr developing the underground railroad and for so many other things she did as a leader in that time. other new national parks would protect almost 90,000 acres of forestland and volcanic peaks in northern new mexico. designate the first national park in delaware, protect fossil fuel resources outside of las vegas, and nonpartisan the story

of the world war ii manhattan project in washington state, which was so important to representative hastings. tennessee and new mexico, of course, are included in that history, and the colt firearms company in hartford, connecticut. which is an unusual kind of park to celebrate, but it's part of the american development of firearms and the colt firearms company played a major role. so we have that outlined in this bill. so, mr. president, the individual bills that are included have been developed with local support and in many cases have been priorities of senators and their senator sponsors for years. i am pleased to have played a pivotal role in building this comprehensive and --

comprehensive package and it took a lot of compromising and an awful lot of hard work. i want to thank the senator -- the lead senator in the defense bill, senator levin, for allowing us t to be part of the defense authorization bill along with senator jack reed, who i spoke with on many, many, occasions, along with senator kevinsenatorlevin, because withr support, i don't know if this bill could have stood. they can't fight the defense authorization bills, tucking it in a bill that is going to pass and will not be vetoed is a way to move these bills forward. it does enjoy broad and deep bipartisan support from literally hundreds of members of congress and hundreds of staffers have spent hours and hours and hours, and the

executive branch, particularly interior, particularly agriculture, and to some extent e.p.a. as well have spent hours negotiating the fine details of this package. so i just want to thank david brooks, who was the lead staffer here with the department -- i mean, with the -- with our committee, energy and natural resources, who has been just a maggivmagnificent staffer here e senate for many, many years. he is known as the senate expert on public lands, and that title most certainly is appropriate for a man who knows so much and cares deeply about our public spaces and finding the right balance between preservation, conservation, and development. and liz craddick, who was my senior director for the committee on energy and natural

resources, was absolutely tireless, not only running the committee in my absence sometimes when i was on the campaign trail but also taking appropriate time to come and work with me for reelection and, in addition, putting together with david this package while all this was going on is really just a testimony to their professionalism. and i thank them very much. i want to thank all the members of my side, particularly for their patience and their understanding as we worked through this package of almost, we think, 80 to 90 bills, and the subcommittees that worked so well moving them forward. so, mr. president, i'll submit this to the record. there may be other senators i'm sure that want to put in individual remarks for the parks and projects and land swaps. but i think it's pretty remarkable that we've cleared up six years of backlog at zero expense to the taxpayer with

extremely broad and deep bipartisan support. i will only say, as one of my last remarks on this senate floor, that it is possible to find common ground, if you're willing to look for it and work hard enough to find it. we need to have our eyes open a little wider, we need to put our shoulder to the wheel a little bit stronger. and if we can do that, we can move a lot of significant legislation through that benefit generations of our citizens and taxpayers for years to come. so i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum, and i'll put this into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: language mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent that joh jonathan burpe-

>> i'm sorry, i suggest -- i suggest the removal of the absence of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent that jonathan burpee, a national park fellow on the staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you. mr. president, i've come down to the floor today to talk about the package of public lands measures included in the house-passed defense bill. i'm told that we're likely to vote on that bill as early as

tomorrow in the senate. and within the land package is a measure that we worked on called the hire mow is a wate water shd act. it is a beautiful portion of forest land just up the road from durango in the southwest corner of colorado. let moo -- let me say at the outset that our office may have introduced the bill in the congress, in the senate here, but it was really the people i represent in southwest colorado who wrote every bit of this piece of legislation. over six years ago, a diverse group of local citizens, mountain bikers, anglers, outfitters, local elected officials and many others all got together to talk about the future of the land. everyone involved liked to visit the area for recreation or to do business there. their discussion was about developing a plan to manage the area so everyone could enjoy it and benefit from the multiple

uses well into the future. over memorial day weekend in 2011, the hermosa group -- the hermosa work group invited my family and me to take a hike through the watershed and join the discussion and we took them up on that offer. so we loaded up the van, we drove to duran goaly and met working group at the hermosa creek trailhead. my youngest daughter anne, who was then probably about eight, made a hiking stick out of a nearby fallen branch and we started up the trail with 40 or so others from the local community. and the president knows this area well, and as we climbed higher and higher, we were overcome by the beauty around us and the forest and valleys, crystal clear streams and unspoiled views in almost every direction. after about an hour, the group pulled off the forest service trail into a meadow, and as anne, helena and caroline bennet, my three daughters, made

me a dandelion necklace out of the dandelions that were there, we started a discussion about what this area meant to the people that were on this trip. the sportsmen came to fish for native colorado cutthroat trout and for back country elk hunting. the mountain bikers come to enjoy the trails known throughout the country and throughout the world. the local water districts love hermosa because it provides clean water for the city of durango and workers in the timber and mining industry stressed that some of the watershed could contribute to extractive development in the future. the upshot of the discussion we had in the meadow that afternoon was an agreement to work together on a bill, a balanced bill that managed the watershed so it would contribute to the local economy long into the future. and more than -- more than just working on this bill, i think the people in that meadow set out to prove that the people in this country can still work together and set an example for

the united states congress. after nearly 3 1/2 years of negotiations since that hike, we're on the verge of passing that bill and sending it to the president for his signature. the hermosa creek watershed protection act governs the entire watershed. it includes provisions to allow for multiple uses, like timber harvesting for forest health, continued access for colorado's snowmobile rs and a critical provision to allow silverton's winter economy to continue to prosper. the bill enhances opportunities for backcountry fishing made possible by the great work of trout unlimited and colorado parks and wildlife to reintroduce native cutthroat trout to the watershed. the bill also adds importantly nearly 40,000 acres to the national wilderness preservation system, lands that provide unique and important opportunities for solitude and reflection, lands that will remain undeveloped forever so they'll always have clear streams to fish and lush forests

for local outfitters to take clients into the wilderness on horseback. mr. president, i'm proud to report that the bill has the unanimous bipartisan backing of the two county commissions involved, the san juan county commission and the laplata county commission. i thank those commissioners for their leadership, for their collaboration and for their vision. and the two local towns, durango and silverton. it has the support of the hermosa creek work group, ranging from hardrock miners to environmental groups. these are people we say here can never get along, can never get anything done because everybody has to get only their position and not -- and disregard the position that the other has had. we've proven that that's not true. and as i say, ranging from hardrock miners to environmental groups like the san juan citizens alliance, conservation colorado and the wilderness society. it has the support of sportsmen, trout unlimited and the backcountry hunters and anglers. the hermosa bill is also

supported by local water district, the southwestern water conservation district. the outdoor recreation community, including the colorado snowmobile association, the colorado off-highway vehicle coalition, and the trails 2000 mountain bike group all support the measure. support for hermosa is especially strong from the local business community. companies as diverse as fly shops, car dealerships, the durango chairman, mercury payment systems, one of the area's largest employers, all agree that protecting public lands adds to the region's quality of life and help them attract top-notch talent to the region. this bill grew from the grass-roots up. republicans, democrats and independents working together to cement a long-term plan for their communities' future. i want to thank senator udall, a longtime champion for colorado's public lands and wilderness, for joining me as a cosponsor of the bill. i'd also like to thank

congressman scott tipton, our partner on the house, for demonstrating that bipartisanship still exists in some corners of the capitol, for supporting this bill. he's been outstanding to work with on this, as has his staff and i look forward to collaborating on other conservation measures in the future. mr. president, to close and to bring this to the beginning, because i know my colleague is here, i don't have to convince most people that colorado is a special place. many people from all over the united states have been to our state to ski our mountains, to run our rivers or climb a 14er. the hermosa creek watershed represents some of the best colorado has to offer. it deserves to be protected and that's what this bill does. however, in some respects, i wish hermosa didn't have to pass this way. this lands package is a great achievement. it came through a robust bipartisan and bicameral process and that work is something truly to be commended.

at the same time, i think the hermosa creek bill could have passed by unanimous consent years ago as a stand-alone bill. or as parts of another smaller, bipartisan, bicameral package that didn't have to wait almost six years while local communities all across the country have been left in limbo. people don't work on the same time that people here work. and their expectations are that we're going to move things along. no one should object to bipartisan, commonsense measures that are widely supported. but instead of regular order, we're left voting on large packages of lands bills every number of years. in fact, save one wilderness bill that passed earlier this session, congress has not passed a wilderness bill since 2009. congress has not passed one wilderness bill since 2009. or, i suppose we've passed one. last congress was the first time a session of congress hadn't passed a wilderness bill in the

history -- in the 50-year history of the wilderness act. that had never happened before, whether the senate was democratic or the senate was republican, whether the house was democratic or republican or whether the president was a democrat or a republican. never happened before. and this congress, provided the vote goes well tomorrow, will have waited nil the 11th hour. the -- will have waited until the 11th hour. the 2009 bill, which was one of the very first ones i voted on as a senator, created 2 million new acres of wilderness. the package we'll vote on tomorrow, contains several hundred thousand acres more, including nearly 40,000 new wilderness acres in the hermosa bill. and while that's great progress, iand it truly is, i wish we were doing more. despite others of widely supported conservation proposals that have been introduced this session, there are only four other wilderness bills included in this package. and once again, i'm strongly

supportive of the package and i urge my colleagues to vote "yes," but in the next -- in the new congress, we ought to hit the reset button and truly honor the intent of the wilderness act which president johnson signed into law 50 years ago by passing more wilderness bills. i can't think of a better anniversary present for the landmark law than for the 114th congress to return to pass more of these bills. let's defy expectations about what the change in the majority means here. let's lift up the bipartisan work that's happening around here and pass more of these bills. historically, conservation's been a bipartisan issue going all the way back to teddy roosevelt. and i hope we might return to the cooperation we've seen in the decades since then and get some more wilderness and conservation done for the american people. this is a glorious and beautiful country that we all represent. we ought to save some of it for our kids and for our grandkids by passing this package and coming together on some others. so i urge "yes" on the bill.

i'd like to say thank you to the presiding officer for all of your work to make sure we could bring this lands bill together with the ndaa bill, and i urge a "yes" vote. and i yield the floor. thank you, mr. president. and i'd like to thank my colleague from alaska for allowing me to go ahead with my remarks. through the chair. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, well, i thank my colleague and his comment about me allowing him the courtesy to go first. i think you actually were scheduled to go first and we were just a little bit behind, so i was pleased to listen to your comments about one of the provisions in this ndaa-lands bill and i thank you for those comments. i also want to acknowledge, mr. president, the comments of the senator from louisiana, our

chairman of the energy committee. i've had the pleasure and the privilege of working with her as the ranking member on the committee now for the past six, eight months since she has held the chair, but before that the honor and the privilege of working with her together on so many energy issues. and as she was detailing the contents of this lands package that is contained within the ndaa bill, i was reminded of what a good partnership we have had working together on the committee. they're not exactly easy issues that come before us. they generate a level of controversy, certainly a level of debate and -- and dialogue, but there has always been good, civil debate and dialogue as we try to work through some very, very difficult issues.

and as senator landrieu leaves the senate at the end of this congress, i want her to know, as i stated in committee just this morning, how much i have appreciated the good work that she has done not only on energy issues but the good work that she has done on behalf of the people that she represents in louisiana. if there is anybody that exemplifies the word "tenaciou "tenacious," it is mary landrieu. and i think the people of her state have -- have enjoyed the benefit of that very tenacious approach to how she takes care of those that she represents. and i thank her for that. i too want to add my comments this evening in support of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2015 and more specifically to the public

lands package. this is title 30. and as senator landrieu had detailed in greater specificity, what we have here is a collection of smaller bills related to public lands. and just because a bill is -- is small and somewhat discreet in terms of its area of impact, it doesn't mean that these are not issues that are critically important to the people of that state, critically important to that region. and so many of these bills that are now part of this package we have spent months, in some cases we have spent years developing, considering, refining, amending, working through these packages. we have spent weeks negotiating which ones will actually be in the package that we have before

us in title 30. and we've now arrived at this point where we have a bipartisan and the bicameral consensus in support of it. so what i'd like to do with my time this evening is to explain how this package is fundamental to economic development in our western states. and i also want to lay out what -- what this package is and also what it isn't, because i think that there have been some misconceptions about what's contained in this. and i also want to provide a little bit of insight into the process by which we crafted this and why it is now time for the senate to do what the house has already done in passing it by a very overwhelming margin. but before we get into the substance of some of these measures, i think that the senate needs to understand why we want this package, why we need to pass it now rather than

waiting until the next congress or perhaps the one after that or perhaps whenever we have a slow day around here. so to the basics of some of th this. and it's probably best described juslie just looking at the map. the dominant landowner in the united states is the federal government. the federal government, like it or not, owns roughly 640 million acres of land. that's more than one-quarter of our country that is held by the federal government. 93% of this land -- of these lands are clustered in just 12 western states. so you see here our federal fault line. these 12 western states are areas where less than 50% of the

land is owned or held by the state and private interests. you look at this divide, on this side, more than 95% is state-controlled land. so you've got a situation where in many of our eastern states the federal government owns just a small fraction of the lands. but if you look to some of our western states and you look at the extent of federal ownership, this is where the picture comes into greater focus no wyoming -- in wyoming, 42.3% of the state of wyoming is held in federal lands. in my state, alaska, 69% of the state of alaska is federally

owned. nevada. nevada walks away with number one, where over 80% of the state of nevada is held by the federal government. now, for folks back in the east coast, what does that really mean? well, let's just say it presents some real difficulties for us in the west. say you want a more than land -- more minor land conveya. an big deal. you live in a state like new york with less than 1% of federal lands. chances are you can go see a real estate attorney, have a document drawn up, might even be able to day it up in one day, maybe fakes a kim of days but you can complete a transaction without too much difficulty. well, you try to do a conveyance in one of our 12 western states where 9 % of the federal --

93% of the federal lands are, it's a different story. chances are you're not going to have the same luck as you might in new york. even if you're speaking the smallest of land con vain himself -- convey answers, one acre, just one acre from the federal side to the state side, to the local side, to the private side, you don't go see an attorney. you need to talk to one of the four federal land management agencies to get approval for your request, and you're not done there. then you need to go see your congressman and your senator because you need federal legislation to make it happen. it honestly takes an act of congress. what people in the east in places where landownership is different than it is in the west, you can handle all of these conveyances, you can work through some of what we're

seeing in this public lands package, you can do it through private transactions. but in the west, it takes an act of congress for a land conveyance, and that is why we see hundreds of public lands bills introduced each congress. it underscores why their passage is so critical to economic development and to job creation in our country. and, mr. president, i have to admit i'm really pleased you are in the chair today coming from a state like new mexico. new mexico, you're at 41.77%. you know full well what we are talking about here when we talk about the imperative of our communities that are asking for a little relief when it comes to a landscapes. and the level -- land

conveyance. the level it rises to is not your city council, it's not the mayor, it's not your legislature, it's not your governor, it's your congressman and your senator and ultimately signed into law by the president of the united states. so what are we actually looking at in this package? after months, truly months of negotiations, perhaps a few near-depth experiences, many temptations to just walk away, we have agreed to a balanced, budget-neutral, revenue-neutral, bicameral, bipartisan package contained in title 30. and these provisions that are contained here will create jobs. they'll create thousands of american jobs. they'll cut the red tape to energy production, they'll protect multiple use and public recreation, they convey federal land for community development, they protect our treasured lands through measured conservation,

and they provide new means for private dollars to support our national parks. we have included a bipartisan provision to streamline oil and gas permitting on our federal lands. it's supported by the western governors association, it cleared the senate by unanimous consent before the elections. so think about that. so many things get tied up in the politics of elections but this was so important to so many on a bipartisan basis, on a regional basis, we moved it through the senate by unanimous consent. we've included a provision to address the backlog of the grazing permit renewals for western ranchers to ease their burdens and there's another provision that we have included that will help to hopefully protect the collapse of the timber industry in southeastern alaska with a conveyance to our alaska native peoples.

a promise that has been 40 years -- 40 years -- in achieving its promise. we've included a major priority for arizona. this is an issue that senator landrieu spoke to. but this was an extensively negotiated land exchange led by senator mccain and senator flake. they have worked -- i know that senator mccain has been working this for a decade over here, to find a way to responsibly open a copper deposit that could meet 25% of our country's needs while at the same time taking incredible care to protect and maintain access to cultural resources and traditional uses of those lands. there's another provision in here that relates to nevada which also facilitates development of a different copper mine. but think about it. we're going to have an

opportunity in nevada and arizona to extract copper. our military needs copper. the construction industry needs copper. the automotive industry needs copper. renewable energy industry needs copper. there's so much benefit to be had here. now, we have some provisions that are contained in this package that perhaps generate fewer headlines but are still hugely important for local communities, and probably the best example of this is a provision for a school in minnesota. this is a measure that we've been working with senator franken on. but it facilitates a land exchange of just one acre. one acre to a school in minnesota. a single, lonely acre. and you probably have people

saying tell me why do we really have to pass a bill in order to make that happen. and the simple answer is yes. and that is why we are here. that is why we are including these provisions, so many provisions in a very important bill. now, i also want to mention what the package is not. what it does not do. it does not contain. and some of the parade of horribles that certain groups have been saying that, in fairness, they're not looking, again, to the balance that we have achieved with this overall package. we saw some rightful concerns emerge before this title was finalized, and everybody's ears always perk up when they hear public lands package, what's it going to be. but we have seen some inaccurate criticisms emerge even after the release. so it's up with thing if they haven't seen what's in it, it's

another thing to look at it and then be critical of that. but i mentioned earlier this is a balanced, revenue-neutral package. we have taken great care to make sure that it's not all focused on new wilderness, new parks, in western states, particularly coming out of alaska, you just are not going to have the support that you need if it is all focused on wilderness and parks. and so it is not -- there is a conservation piece, absolutely, and it's a strong conservation piece and i think it's a good, balanced one. but we also have the very important development piece that is critical to what is contained within. now, to those who have spoken out against creating new

national parks, given the maintenance backlogs that i think we recognize -- could be as high as $20 billion. i get it. i agree with you. i agree with senator coburn that we must address the backlog issues, the maintenance issues, and i thank him for the scrutiny that he and his staff have given to just this issue and the report they came out with. and we are going to be working to address that in a manner that is constructive and long term. i want to reduce the backlogs and we will do it. again, this has been judged to be revenue neutral, and through its passage we could make progress on the backlog issue. one provision that's con neighborhood here that will help is the authorization of a national park service commemorative coin, got 75 of us that are cosponsors that will allow for additional funds to be

raised. senator coburn has a measure in here that will allow for appropriate recognition of volunteers to our national parks. we've also tailored this package to include the wilderness provisions, but it is a discrete number. all of these have strong local and congressional support. we're looking at less than 250,000 acres in all, and actually from a practical perspective, far less than that. most of these provisions were sponsored by a house republican, some have been endorsed by a governor or state legislature. with others, we're simply making it official. nearly half, nearly half of what would become wilderness is already managed as if it were wilderness. it's in wilderness study areas or it's in roadless area designation.

mr. president, this is not a zero-sum game because we should be focused on the productive value of our public lands above all else but for those that are kind of keeping score of this acre per acre here, i want to remind you the package transfers almost 110,000 acres of federal land into state or private hands through conveyances, exchanges, and sales. we're also releasing more than 26,000 acres of land from wilderness study back into multiple use, and examples of what those lands could be used for include building a transmission lines or motorized recreation. now, i know that some have raised issues about the various studies that are contained within the bill which in my view are more a matter of due diligence than anything else. because a further act of congress will be required before

any new park, any museum or wild and scenic designation can be established. and then you have the funding aspect of it as well. so, again, these are studies. this is not the creation of a new museum, this is not the creation of a new park. these are studies. i think it's important to reiterate we've taken great care to protect private property. we have forbidden the use of eminent domain and the condemnation of private property. we've also set a positive precedent by eliminating the potential use of buffer zones around designated lands. again, i'm going to say it one more time, but this -- this package is the result of bipartisan and bicameral negotiation, weeks of meetings amongst members and staff of the committees of jurisdiction, the committees who have crafted the overall ndaa bill, leadership in both chambers, and many

individual members. so for those who would suggest that this package is somehow hastily assembled, this is some kind of rush to judgment, it is at the end of a very long and actually very traditional process. we have considered, debated, amended these provisions over the course of congress using the committee process and the house and senate floor when we could. every bill, mr. president, within this package has been reviewed by the committees of jurisdiction. ware nowe're not hopscotching or anybody. at least 30 bills have passed the house. seven have passed the senate. even though we haven't devoted time it a large package of individual bills, some of these provisions have been considered in multiple congresses. you may look through the list and they look like reruns. well, it's because we've tried

and the process didn't allow for full completion. so what we have with title 30 builds upon the lands and natural resource provisions that were included in the initial house-passed ndaa. these were provisions that were primarily under the senate energy and natural resources committee's jurisdiction. we have seen in the past the ndaa bill include public lands packages, and it's happened enough times that house leaders actually named the house resources committee as official conferees to it. but i think what's very important for us to remember about this lands package is that what we have done, this effort, has taken no time and no funding -- no funding -- away from our military or our veterans, and nor has its inclusion held the ndaa back for a single moment here. i think we would all prefer a

process where we could take the time to bring up senator bennet's bill on the floor, talk about it, have him tell us about all the magic of this region, but we haven't seen that in this body in far too long. i would prefer that process where all these bills could be considered individually on their own, but know -- know that we have reviewed everything closely. this is a revenue-neutral package. we've found the right balance. we've reached bipartisan and bicameral agreement. we don't need to start over. we don't need to be working these same bills in a new congress. we don't need to see a groundhog's day with so many of these measures that are small but are so important to these western states. it is time to finish this. it's time to pass these reasonable measures. so i would encourage the senate

to support this package as part of the larger ndaa bill so that we can fulfill our responsibility to those in the western states and those who have public lands that we are happy to have but we also need to know that we can have a level of responsiveness within our system to allow us to work those land. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. first i'd like to thank the senator from alaska for her tireless efforts on the lands bill and the ndaa bill and the bipartisan spirit she brought to all these negotiations over a long period of time. she is to be commended for it. i don't think we'd be anywhere close to where we are without

her work. so i thank her for that. and i am, mr. president, now here to speak briefly about the intelligence committee's report on the c.i.a.'s interrogation methods. i support the committee's decision to release the report. i think as a country it shows that we've got the courage to face the truth, no matter how ugly that truth may be. coloradans need to know the truth. the american people deserve to know the truth. and our willingness to face this difficult truth reminds us that we live and we are lucky to live in the most open and transparent democracy the world has ever known. unlike the acts that were brought to light by the intelligence committee report, this willingness for self-examination is something to be celebrated about america. the report will be the subject of significant debate over the coming weeks and months and maybe even years, as it should be. and nobody should be cavalier about the risks that are

associated with the release of this information. but this is a discussion that our country needs to have. and although i'm still reviewing the report, a couple of things have -- are pretty clear at the outset. first, the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques failed to secure accurate information or cooperation from detainees. the very first finding of the report, the very first finding of the report says -- quote -- "while being subjected to the c.i.a.'s enhanced interrogation techniques and afterwards, multiple c.i.a. detainees fabricated information resulting in faulty intelligence. detainees provided fabricated information on critical intelligence issues, including the terrorist threats which the c.i.a. identified as its highest priorities." so now only has torture not made the country safer, it may have

made us less safe, at least according to this report. the report re-vialthe report ree c.i.a. withheld access to detainees and provided inaccurate information about the interrogation tactics. information was withheld from former secretary of state colin powell out of a concern that he would -- quote -- "blow his stack if he were to be briefed on what's been going on." the c.i.a. repeatedly misled congress an and impeded oversigt by its own inspector general. the report rebuts any notion that these brutal tactics led to actionable intellectua intelligt made our country safer. most significant, this report -- and i thank the presiding officer for his service on the intelligence committee; it's a

committee that by definition people can't learn very much about, and i know it takes a lot of time and an awful lot of work that you go underappreciated. this week we're learning why the oversight is so important, the work on that committee is so important. and most significantly, this report has reminded us that the use of torture is completely at war with who we are as a country and the ideals we hold. throughout our country's history, our american values, the notion that all people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable human rights, has sustained us through our most difficult times. it helped us triumph in world war ii. it eventually led to the fall of communism during the cold war. it has attracted millions of immigrants to our shores. it has inspired generations of americans to rectify the inequality that exists in their own times, to create a more

perfect union. and in fact the values of democracy and human dignity are what brought my mother and her family to the united states after surviving the horrors of the holocaust in poland. it was a place that they called "beautiful america," as much an idea as it was a place to them. torture is repugnant to these fundamental american ideals. it's often aid that the strength of our democratic institutions is tested during times of crisis. understanding what happened and ensuring that we won't use torture again will help our democratic institutions persevere in the future and serve future generations as well as the generations that were here before. it will demonstrate that we are better and we are stronger than ouren miss, and it will en-- our enemies. and it will ensure that our valuables will continue to -- values will continue to inspire

my mother and people all across the globe. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. bennet: mr. president? mr. president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 604, h.r. 1447. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 604, h.r. 1447, an act to encourage states to report to the attorney general certain information regarding the deaths of individuals in the custody of law enforcement agencies and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. bennet: thank you. i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent the banking, housing and urban affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3574 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3374, an act to provide for the use of saving promotion raffle products and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i further ask the bill -- and just to be sure that it's in the record. it's h.r. 3374. my eyes are going. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. bennet: i further ask the bill be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no

intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r h.r. 4193, which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4193, an act to amend title 5, united states code, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i further ask the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4926, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4926, an act to designate a segment of interstate route 35 in the state of minnesota and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed and the

motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 5705, which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 5705, an act to modify certain provisions relating to the propane education and research council. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2822 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2822, a bill to require the secretary of veterans affairs to conduct a

study on matters relating to the burial of unclaimed remains of veterans in national cemeteries and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. bennet: i further ask the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 598, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. resolution 598, expressing condolences to the family of abdul rahman peter kasig and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i understand that s. 2992 is at the desk and due for its second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2992, a bill to amend title 10, united states code, and so forth -- mr. bennet: i would object to any further proceedings with respect to the bill. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent that the tributes to retiring senators be printed as a senate document and that senators be permitted to submit tributes until december 23, 2014. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 5471 and the bill be referred to the committee on agriculture. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. bennet: thank you,

mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, december 11, 2014. that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. and that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to accompany h.r. 3979, ndaa. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: for the information of all senators, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to concur on the defense authorization bill at 10:30 a.m. if there's no further business to come before the senate p, i ask that it -- before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

how does that work? >> guest: while it's being called on capital hill a crown of us. a full line by lang healthy guidance for most of the federal, city agencies and the federal government and then one short-term continuing resolution for the department of homeland security and back goes through february 27. >> host: why did they decide to delay or make that deadline

february 27 for homeland security? >> guest: is the way that house republican leaders have decided to force a fight with the president on his executive actions on immigration. there were conservatives and their party who wanted to confront the president now but this was a compromise. they said they would come back to it early and in a congress. >> host: cq treated early that the measure includes $5 billion for the islamic state operatio operations. is that match up with what the white house wanted and what about their request for ebola? how did they ask for and how much of a getting? >> guest: the white house asked for 5.6 billion dollars in emergency funding. it does fund most of that. it called for $6.2 billion in emergency funding to fight ebola. both at home and abroad. appropriators gave them 5.4 billion of that. where most of the money came out of for the discrepancy between 6.2 m. 5.4 comes out of a

contingency fund that the administration wanted an case of emergency, in case anything happened where they needed to tap extra money in the provider said no. >> host: 's typically on the best spending bills are -- >> guest: the biggest one right now is a dodd-frank related amendment that, dodd-frank policy. it would repeal the swaps push a provision of a dodd-frank regulatory overhaul. basically it will require banks to push out resident business, push up the derivatives business from the partisan that is federally insured. that is proving to be a big sticking point with democrats and the house democratic leader nancy pelosi mentioned that the big point of contention for her. also on there is a campaign-finance related amendment added at the last minutedemo e ats are not happy with. it would up the limits of

individual donors can give to national parties for things like conventions. >> host: ahead of that expected for debate on thursday as you mentioned nancy pelosi releasing a statement that says house democrats deeply troubled by the inclusion of the special-interest provisions for the 25 -- 2015 on the this bill and chris van hollen tweeting he's spending no -- voting no leaving taxpayers on the hook for gambling and a critical campaign-finance reform. what does this mean in terms of democratic support when the final blow comes on thursday? >> guest: we still don't know yet. nancy pelosi notably stop short of saying she wouldn't vote for the measure. there still is a possibility and she said democrats are not going to be the party of shutting down the government. it seems at this point she's not going against the spending bill so it seems at least for the moment that democrats are free to choose however they want whether they will support this or not so we really are still getting a sense of where

democrats are. we do think that house republicans will need some democrats to bring the spending bill over the line. >> host: our viewers can read your reporting on cq.com. headline here house gop is confident about passage so in terms of their operation who are the people that republicans concerned about? >> guest: there's a core group of hard-line conservatives who tend to vote against spending bills that we have seen that there is a group. they are really pushing for the inclusion of a policy writer that would bar funding for the implementation of the president's executive action on immigration. although speaker john boehner said that will not be included in the spending bill and as it stands now the language is not in there. >> host: tamar hallerman is at tamar hallerman and of course a cq.com. we appreciate you joining us.

>> a special house committees investigating the deadly 2012 attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that killed a u.s. ambassador and three other americans. that's next on c-span2. >> for four years this campaign. this started in 2010 right after he saw what happened in the republican primary after rand paul the republican kentucky senator.

rand paul beat mcconnell mcconnell's handpicked guy and at that point mcconnell realized i have to recalibrate everything i know about republican primary politics in my home state and he started to make changes. he hired key staff. he started to build this very sophisticated infrastructure knowing that this would be the most difficult race in his campaign. >> they knew they would spend a lot of money technology. the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012 they had watched harry reid's election in 2010. they knew that they needed to go to beat bruce lunsford by six points. it was a tough race. he was going to have the latest technology. you and i did an interview in 2013 and he said he was going to build the most thorough senate campaign ever. >> in american history. >> in american history and he probably got there.

next the panel looks at the 2012 attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi and diplomatic security concerns. the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security on the state department inspector general testified at this house committee on benghazi. the chair is congressman trey gowdy. >> i want to welcome everyone. i want to apologize to our two witnesses and to everyone else who has been waiting. blame me for the delay. that would be the quickest and easiest thing to do. we apologize for it and i will do my best to start on time

henceforth. this is hearing number two reviewing efforts to secure u.s. diplomatic securities and personnel. this committee will come to her. the chairman knows a quorum. we are taking testimony pursuant to the appropriate house resolution number and house rule number. i will now recognize myself an opening statement and the gentleman from maryland. in september 2124 of our fellow americans were killed and others were injured in an attack on our facility in benghazi libya. sean smith tyrone woods glenn dougherty and ambassador chris stevens died under circumstances most of us cannot fathom. fire, violence, terror, the weaponry of war. i want to read something and i want to ask my colleagues to listen to what i read not just to the words but i wanted to imagine having to live through or die through the experience. on september 11, 2012 at

9:45 p.m., 20 or more armed men assembled outside outside the mission in benghazi in which the mission gate. several al-sharia members have been identified among the group. the additional groups were armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers. during this attack holdings were set on fire. the fires set during the tech lead to the death of ambassador chris stevens and sean smith and remaining personnel escape to nearby u.s. facility known as the annex and it also came under attack which continued throughout the early morning hours. on september 12 culminating in a mortar attack that killed tyrone woods and glenn dougherty. what i just read is the now official position of the u.s. government filed in u.s. district court by the department of justice in a motion to detain the one defendant who has been captured and will stand trial.

20 or more men, the weapons of war, arson, sustained attacks precision mortars terrorist groups. it is interesting to note the use of the word terrorists so rarely used in the days and weeks after benghazi by people in positions of power is now the very words used in the barry statute charging the very defendant accused of killing our four fellow americans. conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists resulting in death. that is the charge. that is the official charge, the official position of the united states government. but in the days after the attack in benghazi the word terrorist was edited out and changed. now the administration uses the word attack. in the days after the attack on benghazi the administration edited out and change the word attack. it's one thing to have it wrong

initially and eventually get it right. it's another thing to have it right initially and then edit it and change it so that it is wrong. i remain keenly aware that there are those on both sides of the aisle who have concluded that all questions have been answered. there is nothing left to do, no more witnesses to talk to, no more documents to review. some of those very same folks did not think benghazi should have been looked at in the first place. but i disagree. i do not think we should move on until there is a complete understanding of how the security environment described by our own government and court documents was allowed to exist. i don't think we should move on until we understand why we were told special precautions have been taken prior to the anniversary of 9/11. what precautions were taken? where? by whom?

why were we told the benghazi facility was secured? why were we told it was a strong security presence in benghazi when we now know that was false? and i wasn't sure at the time it was said. we should not move on until there is a complete understanding of why requests for additional security were denied. by whom they were denied and why and ambassador trusted to represent us in a dangerous land was interested to know what security he needed to do his j job. it has been two years. we know the request for additional equipment and personnel were denied that we don't have a full understanding of why those requests were denied and we should not move on until there is a complete understanding. of that or my the official position of our government is so different today than it was in the days and weeks after

benghazi. the facts haven't changed. the evidence has not changed but the way our government characterizes benghazi has changed a lot. this hearing will continue our committee's efforts to ensure the recommendations made after the attacks on benghazi are implemented and i will pledge again and worthy of the four that were killed and worthy of the respect of our fellow citizens but i also pledge we are going to keep asking questions until we have a complete understanding of what happened and to that end we will have hearings in january, in february, in march and until and that means access to all the documents and that means access to all the witnesses who acknowledge. this committee will be the last best hope for answering the question surrounding the attacks of in benghazi. we may actually wind up answering some of the questions

more than once. we may risk answering a question twice. that seems like a really small investment compared with what others have given and are currently giving to our country. with that i would recognize the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you very much mr. chairman for holding today's hearing as well as our previous hearing three months ago on this topic which was proposed by the congressman. these two hearings demonstrate the continued commitment of both democrats and republicans to make our embassy safe. as i have often said this is our watch. this is not about today or tomorrow. this is about generations yet unborn.

and so we all take this assignment very seriously. over the course of 18 months of exhaustive investigations first by the independent accountability review boards and then by seven u.s. general committees. we have learned many answers to questions about what happened in benghazi and what changes are needed to improve security at our diplomatic facilities overseas. but as we have also seen when it comes to benghazi, too many people are unaware that questions have been answered or are unwilling to accept the answers they hear. benghazi on the record centralizes it in one place these answers. since we met last the house

permanent select committee on intelligence publicly released its bipartisan unanimous -- unanimously adopted report. as our intelligence committee and colleagues explain in that quote this report ended nearly two years of intensive investigation and reflection is meant to serve as the definitive housestatement on the intelligence community's activities before,ing and after the tragic events that have caused the deaths of four brave americans end of quote. these bipartisan findings joined their previous conclusions of the republican-led house armed services committee about the military's readiness and responses on the night of the

attacks. our committees, democratic members had urged the chairman to review and accept these findings as we did not think that there is any reason for this committee to reinvestigate these facts. repeat the work already committed by her republican and democratic colleagues and squander millions of hard-working dollars that come from hard-working taxpayers. the chairman has decided to use this hearing to focus on constructive reform. instead of retreading the same ground other committees have all been investigating. investigated in a way that perhaps one would investigate something if they were looking at it under a high-powered microscope. we urge him to keep his focus on these constructive efforts and not be lured off this path of

bipartisan politics. we are bigger than that and we are better than that. i appreciate you mr. chairman for our discussions where you have agreed by the end of the year to give us a scope as to exactly what we will be looking at and hopefully we will be able to come to the conclusions about what we do so that we can focus on those things that we still need to investigate. i appreciate the fact that you've agreed to meet with me and the speaker tomorrow with regard to rules of the committee. you and i agreed with us and it helps us to deal with issues that may come up and i do really appreciate that. immediately after the benghazi attack the independent accountability review board conducted a blistering examination of what went wrong at the state department and identified 29 recommendations for reform. secretary clinton accepted every single one of them and inspector

general reported and i quote the department wasted no time addressing the recommendations and that quote. during our first hearing three months ago assistant secretary starr testified that the department had closed 22 of the rpgs and 29 recommendations. since then the department has continued making steady progress so we are pleased to hear that. it has closed three more recommendations and continues to make progress on the remaining four. the department has now delivered fire safety equipment to all but one high threat posed and it has affirmed compliant with fire safety equipment requirements and safe havens and safe areas in overseas facilities. the department has now delivered fire safety equipment to all but one post and it has affirmed

compliance with fire safety equipment requirements. they arg found that the last adequate safety equipment may have contributed to the tragic consequences that might so i'm heartened to hear that the department has completed this recommendation since our last meeting. the department has disclosed a recommendation for disclosing security staffing to address by arb. mr. starr's testimony indicates the new positions are fully funded and the department intends to complete all of the remaining new hires by early 2015. the department has also instituted mandatory threat training for high-risk foes and created a working group to develop joint risk management forces further addressing

shortcomings at the arb, identified with regard to the training and expertise of the department personnel. i anchor socially look forward to hearing more from mr. starr on the work that remains to be done. we also are doing today my inspector general in a september 2013 report his office made seven security-related recommendations that overlapped to a large degree what the arb's recommendations were's recommendations work that i was heartened to hear that six of these recommendations are now closed. concerns remain however including lingering questions about whether the departments made sufficient changes to ensure that the department bureaus are communicating effectively and decision-making authority is centralized and clear. regarding the arb process inspector general's office examined the 12 arb's and being following the 1998 embassy

bombings through 2012 benghazi attacks. they concluded the arb process and that quote operated as independently and without bias to identify vulnerabilities in the department of state security programs. the inspector general nonetheless recommended the process and it's my understanding that the discussions on those recommendations are ongoing. as i close one of these recommendations was for the department to amend its foreign affairs manual to institutionalize the responsibility for arb implementation. as the inspector general's report noted in that quote handling of arb recommendations represented a significant departure from the previous norm and that secretary clinton took charge directly of oversight for the implementation process. the inspector general found that

a high level voted to this task and that quote establishes a model for how the department should handle future arb recommendations. i'm interested in hearing for mr. starr whether to starr whether the department made recommended changes and to that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from berlin. the first witness will be the honorable gregory starr the assistant secretary of the diplomatic security of the department of state in the second witness will will be steve's up on inspector general for the department of state. welcome to you and again my apologies for you having to wait on me. you will each be recognized for your five-minute opening. there are a series of white and without secretary starr. >> thank you chairman gowdy thank you chairman gao the ranking member cummings and distinguished committee members. thank you for inviting me again to update you on the state

department's progress implementing the recommendations made by the independent benghazi accountability review board and i will refer to that in the future is the arb. i would like to knowledge my co-panelist inspector steve linick. inspector linick works closely with the bureau of diplomatic security on many issues, which the committee has highlighted for discussion today and although i'm focus primarily on the benghazi arb implementation today hope to be able to provide some insight into how the department works with the inspector general's office to ultimately improve security around the world. the task of keeping u.s. personnel overseas save his dynamic and an ever evolving process. we were constantly to improve our practices and protect our people read the arb process is an important tool towards that goal and today we are safer and more secure because of the recommendations of the benghazi panel and other arb's. our progress on the benghazi arb

is measurable and sustained and importantly many of the lessons learned further incorporated into policy. of the 29 recommendations we have now closed 25 of them. that includes theory that we have closed since september my last testimony based on further work and analysis. we are committed to finishing that work. yet to do so on a final recommendation we will not lose sight of continuing and building on the security procedure with improvements that abari been instituted i would like to highlight just a few examples of what we have done to improve our security posture since the attacks of benghazi. these are specific tangible changes. we have more diplomatic security and department defense personnel on the ground and our facilities today. we have increased the skills and competencies for diplomatic security agents by increasing the training time in the high threat course. we have expanded the foreign affairs counter threats course

to our colleagues beyond high threat posed because we recognize the value the skills to all foreign personnel and employees overseas. these are skills that people can take with them to make us safer and make them safer and every post they are at. there are broader more programmatic changes. one which i discussed in september was the launch process of eb-2. through vp2 the statement department ask itself hard questions abounds the risk and the benefits at our highest threat posed. the end result is a clear-eyed risk assessment of whether the u.s. should operate in those dangers locations and if so how do we operate? for the process determines u.s. national interest require us to operated dangers posed the department undertakes measures to mitigate identified risks and prioritizes resources to do so. the steps we have taken to

implement the benghazi arb recommendations underscores an important point. we live in a world with more unstable and dangerous locations. our foreman policy often demands we send our people to work in those very places that are increasingly perilous. we cannot eliminate risk. the threats evolve. as result the work of securing our facilities and safeguarding our people is never complete. we are committed to implementing the arb recommendations that we are also committed to looking forward to meeting the new challenges of threats as they develop. our best assets in this effort are our people. our highly trained foreign service officers and security personnel are out of the field every day executing u.s. foreign policy. they deserve the credit and thanks for the work that they do on our behalf. it's our job to do everything we can to reduce the risks they face.

as a system secretary for diplomatic security i'm committed to keeping our people as safe as possible. i know the committee as well as the inspectors general's office shares our commitment in making that true, keeping our people as safe as possible. without mr. chairman i'd be happy to answer questions with the department and committee that implementation of the arb. >> thank you mr. starr. mr. linick. >> chairman gowdy meg you member coming coming symptoms that may think it would have a chance to testify regarding our review of arb process and associated work we have conducted in recent years on security related matters. since the september 2012 attacks on u.s. diplomatic facilities and bankrupting the oid is redouble its efforts related to security issue reports targeting security matters. in addition to that work points that post across the globe and

review security in the trunk in my comments i will address the arb process and discuss findings based on security related work. in september 2013 oig published its report on special review the accountability review process. the process by which the department arb's are established supportive staff to conducted. a special review in a manner which department tracks implantation of our recommendations. we found that followed their own long-term security program improvements involving physical security training and intelligence sharing lack sustained oversight by the department's principles. a lack of follow-through is blamed in part on why arb recommendations previous therapy in the recognition. we conclude that every recommendations were discussed with the secretary of state and other department principles take full ownership of implementation process. oig special review may 24 mall recommendations in may of 2014

but i notify the deputy secretary of state for management and resources of the status of those recommendations and i provided additional suggestions intended to enhance the effectiveness of arb process. although some of our recommendations relate to special review in my later suggestions remain unresolved at the time of oig has found evidence the department has made progress in addressing some of security concerns. during fiscal year 2015 we will be conducting a formal follow-up review on compliance with their own recommendations and with the benghazi arb implementations. in addition to the arb review process of oig has issued a variety of reports covering significant security matters. they take this opportunity to highlight for areas of concern. the first relates to physical security deficiency. oig reports demonstrate the department is at increased risk because it lacks processes and planning to ensure the department fully understands the security needs and priorities

that post around the world. if the department cannot identify security vulnerabilities they cannot adequately plan, budget for implement solutions. in 2012 oig conducted a series of audits and post located in europe latin america and africa which identified security deficiencies and nine embassies in one consulate that required immediate attention. a number of these bows were designated high threat. oig auditors found the proposed were not in compliance with the department of procedural security standards. security deficiencies common among the post included among others the failure to meet minimum compound perimeter requirements and to properly conduct inspections and vehicles before entering posts. the most egregious problem we found in these audits have identified, had been identified in recent inspections is the use of warehouse space in burma facilities were for offices which do not comply with standards and places personnel at great risk for the second

area of concern involves deception waivers granting compliance and security standards. oig has found a number of overseas posts have not maintained after exception records. in addition to the oig found the bureau of diplomatic security was not monitoring posts whether they were obtaining waivers and exceptions were deviations from standards. the department reported remediated the condition at this time. third area of concern involves the taking security issues up with a pair of diplomatic security and overseas building operations share responsibility for ensuring posts physical security needs they don't adequately coordinate. the fourth issue of concern relates to vetting of local guards. vs overseas guard forces in a critical part of security department overseas. they typically are posted outside or just inside the permanent embassy compound and responsible for -- etc..

we conducted an audit at the garden noted in june of 2014 that none of the six contractors reviewed by oig fully performed to the vetting procedure specified. one bad actor with the right position can endanger the safety and security personnel overseas. in conclusion security issues have been and continue top priority for my office. i want to thank my staff for their professionalism and commitment to this effort they look forward to continuing to engage with the department of congress over these matters in the coming months in an effort to mitigate risk and avoid future incidents like the attacks that occurred in benghazi. chairman gowdy ranking member coming some members of the committee think you can for the opportunity to testify today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you mr. linick. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from indiana mrs. brooks. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you both for appearing here today and for your service to our country. as inspector general mr. linick and all inspector generals were all agencies would it be correct

to say that generally you were charged with ensuring in this case the state department is effectively managed and accountable for its decisions? is that what inspector generals do? >> yes. >> and you conduct audits. we have heard you talked about audits and the way inspector general do that as they conduct audits of valuations and inspections and he does mention some of those. is that correct? >> yes and we look at programs and operations as well. >> you are likely to turn watchdog or eternal police department -- internal watchdog for these state department that you are not appointed by the secretary of state. is that correct? >> was appointed by the secretary and confirmed by the senate. i was appointed in september 2013. >> that means you have complete independence from the state department and the decisions they make. >> yes we are independent.