to vet people coming here from syria, an ability we don't have as the f.b.i. director honestly and directly stated. and any claims made by others that refugees in the united states never engage in acts of terrorism are demonstrably false. just a few weeks ago i identified a list of at least 12 individuals whom were admitted to the united states as refugees, who have been implicated in terrorism in the last year alone. we found out there may be more. probably others under investigation right now. in fact, the pick fib has said there's a terrorism investigation -- fact, the f.b.i. says there's a terrorism investigation in every single state in america. these terrorists, for example, were from somalia, bosnia, kenya and uzbekistan.

they came at different stages in their lives. some were admitted as children, others as adults, yet they all turned their back on this country after being welcomed here as refugees. so this is not made up. it's a real problem. the american people want some action. they'd like to see congress and this administration respond effectively. and they are rightly angered and upset with their elected representatives and their president for the not taking sufficient action. so i, along with my colleague, senator shelby and others in the house, asked for the inclusion of specific language in this omnibus bill that would protect the interests of the american people, that would reassert the constitutional role of congress in establishing a uniform system of immigration that would require the identification of offsetting cuts in federal

spending to pay for the refugee admission program. but none of that was included in the omnibus bill. i doubt they ever spent a minute looking at the letter from two united states senators. over the course of the last ye year, as chairman of the subcommittee on immigration and the national interest, i sent appropriators a list of several dozen provisions for inclusion in our funding bills to improve immigration enforcement, block presidential overreach and lawlessness, including, among other things, provisions to defund the sanctuary cities. why should we be funding, providing federal law enforcement moneys to cities that won't even cooperate with the federal government in its most basic responsibilities of respect and comity between these various federal and state agencies? it goes on every day but we are

being blocked in sanctuary city after sanctuary city. also, we asked the appropriators to prevent visas from being issued to nationals of countries that refuse to take back their criminals. this is important. my former colleague, senator specter, offered a bill for a number of time. it would bar admission under certain visas from countries who wanwon't take back their people who've entered the united states. it is a fundamental principle of immigration law the worldwide that if you admit a person from a foreign country, when their visa is up, they go home. and their visa is up if they commit a crime and they're being sent back home, they're to be

deported. but country after country is refusing to take back their convicted criminals. i guess they figure, why don't you keep our criminals for us? but that's not what the law is and that's not what the heritage s. and we are stuck with -- heritage is. and we are stuck with them in jail, we have to pay for their housing. and after six months, the supreme court says they have to be released or you have to go to court and have another hearing. and this is driving up costs, using incredible amounts of ours. we shouldn't tolerate it one minute. there's no reason -- no reaso reason -- that this government shouldn't act to declare, which the law now will allow and actually says they should do and that is to refuse to allow visas from a country that won't take back their criminals. they refuse to do it. so additional legislation could force that and we should have done it in this bill.

it should have bipartisan support. i think it would have bipartisan support. we believe that we should have put language in the bill to defund unlawful, improper executive amnesty, the president's actions that are unlawful. we don't have to fund his unlawful activity. there's no duty on behalf of congress to congress to acquiesce and provide the money to create a big building over here in crystal city to process millions of people that are in the country illegally because the president now says, i'm just going to let them stay. it's been blocked, for the most part, by a federal court but that's where they are. nothing in the bill to do that. we asked for legislation to protect american workers against abuses in the h-1b program. this is where california edison had a program. they fired -- they brought in

500 foreign workers from india in some sort of contract deal, had the local 500 workers that have been at con edison doing computer work for years, had them train the new workers and then terminated them. terminated the americans and replaced them with those from abroad. how can anyone say there was a shortage of workers? the same was done by disney. senator nelson of florida and i have offered legislation to fix that. i've offered legislation with senator cruz and support legislation from senator grassley that would fix that. none of that's been included in this bill. why not? we wrote and asked that the omnibus bill expand the 287-g program that allows federal law enforcement officials and officers to assist with enforcing our immigration laws. this was a good program. it's been on the boofntle

president bush finally, under pressure from me -- it's been on the books. president bush, finally under pressure from me and others, began to expand it. so they began to expand officers for weeks at a time and so then they become officers who begin to detain and process people who are unlawfully in the program who have been apprehended. a very good program that had good results. this government -- this obama administration has eviscerated it. it is a half -- less than half of what it was. it should have been expanded all over america. if you actually wanted the law enforced in this country. but if you don't want the law enforced in america, you kill a program like 287-g. did the appropriators put in the omnibus bill anything to deal with that abuse? no. we put in language that would prevent illegal aliens -- illegal aliens -- from receiving tax credits.

this is unbelievable. the inspector general for the u.s. treasury department, president obama's own treasury department, has did an analysis of this and urged that it be fixed. people come here to america illegally. they got children somewhere around the world. they don't have a social security number. they use an i-10 identification document for executives who are supposed to travel in but these -- that's what it was intended for. and they use that and they file some sort of tax return and they don't pay taxes because their income is low but they get a tax credit based on children that are not even in the country. i mean, how abusive is that? i understand this was rejected and not in the omnibus bill because president obama didn't want it. so he gets to dictate what's in a congressional bill that something i think would have 90%

support from the american people if they understood how significant it was? there's different figures but it's at least $4 billion a year. an abusive, improper tax credit payment. so all these were rejected by the bill supporters. but industries' request for more foreign workers, that -- that was granted. unconditionally approved. and so i ask about this provision. hi had heard this might be under consideration and so i asked about it. i said, the american people don't want a fourfold increase in immigration. i know there's some special interest pushing for this. i've heard that. tell me it's not so. and i was told it wasn't so. but last night, this morning at

2:00 a.m., i guess, when the bill was produced, it's in the there. so i'm not happy about it, colleagues. i don't see how we can operate around here if we can't rely on representations. because of this bill, sanctuary cities will continue to get federal funds. the obama administration can continue issuing visas to countries that refuse to repatriate, take back, violent criminal aliens. and the president's executive amnesty continues. meanwhile, the tax bill that will be moving with this omnibus bill makes permanent the additional child tax credit and the earned income tax credit and it does nothing to block their future distribution of moneys to illegal aliens. a tax credit to a person who doesn't pay taxes is a check

from the government. it's not a tax deduction, it's a direct payment. it scores as a welfare benefit by the -- by the budget office. so this means more illegal aliens will continue to get the tax credits. it should be stopped. it should long since have been stopped. as i feared, the ultimate effect that i expressed and have been concerned about for some months now is that this bill will fund the president's entire lawless immigration agenda. it's the only real bill we've got up that provides an opportunity to legislate, to fix some of these things, a big omnibus bill. and what does it do? it funds essentially the president's entire agenda. in fact, the omnibus spending bill will ensure that at leas

least -- for example, we've had discussion about the middle east and we're not letting in enough people from the middle east and we shouldn't talk about a pause and evaluation of immigration in the middle east or the world as a whole, but under this bill, it will ensure at least 170,000 green cards -- that means permanent residency with a guaranteed path to citizenshi citizenship -- refugee and asylee approvals are -- will be issued to migrants from muslim countries just over the next 12 months. we're very generous about this and it's very difficult to know if we're managing it properly, except we know that it's -- it's not being safely managed because the f.b.i. director has told us it's not safe. so this bill even fails to address substantial problems with the eb-5 investor visa program, a problem that some of

my colleagues have worked for months to resolve. the problems with this program has been documented by the government accountability office and the department of homeland security's inspector general. not the least of which are issues related to fraud and national security. we can fix that program. we -- we need to do it. this would have been a good opportunity. for years, the american people have suffered under the lawless, dangerous, wage-reducing immigration policies of this administration. they sent us to washington, they sent us here, the people did, to protect their interests, to protect the people's interests. to ensure the defense of their families and to advance the common good, the public intere interest. they did not send us here to bow down to the president's lawless immigration policies nor to line the pockets of special interests and big business. that's not what we are here for. who do we represent?

this bill explains why republican and democratic voters are in open rebellion, as former speaker of the house, newt gingrich, said recently. open rebellion. they elect people that they believe are going to take action to protect their security, their jobs, their wages and what do they get? a bill that is worse than current law, goes in the opposite direction. no wonder people are upset. this legislation represents a further disenfranchisement of the american voter. what does a vote mean in this country? at a time when hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens who, by law, should be deported are on our streets. we've had hearings on this. criminal aliens are killing innocent americans. numerous foreign-born individuals are implicated in

terrorism. tens of thousands of aliens from central america continue to stream across our southern border. countless americans are being replaced by foreign workers and forced to train their replacements. and millions of other americans just struggling to get by. so this congress has chosen to make things worse. so we need to remember who we represent, who our duty is to. our duty is to the voters, the american people, not to interests, businesses, activist groups and that kind of thing. so, mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. i have been very firm about my statements here, but i'm very

unhappy about it. i do not believe this is the kind of legislation we should be moving. we have no idea yet what all is in it. it was not moved in the normal process on the floor of the united states senate where amendments could be offered and a bill could be staged over months of time before final passage, perhaps. so with regret and a good deal of frustration, i will urge my colleagues to oppose and reject this proposal. mr. president, i -- i was going to -- let me just mention one more thing, and then i will wrap up. senator shelby and i wrote letters to the appropriations committee on november 16 asking for congress to assume its

constitutional duty ensuring immigration laws are uniform by approving the number of refugees that come to america and not leave that an open-ended power given to the president who can execute it in an arbitrary manner. we also said that no benefits to future refugees should be provided until the congressional budget office submits a score, a simple report on the cost of this program. how long would it take? not that long. don't we need to have a score, a cost number? we also ask that no refugee admissions would be accepted until the department of homeland security submits a report on terrorist and criminal refugees, what they're doing about that. so that wasn't included in any of the legislation that came before us. i think all of those are

logical. i also wrote the committee on november 9 that no specific -- that no funds for lawsuits against states that are trying to help enforce immigration laws to block funding to sue our states who are trying to be positive, to bar funds for attorneys for illegal aliens through these grant programs that are being utilized. they have never been the responsibility of the federal government to prepare and provide free attorneys for people who have entered the country illegally. never has been the law. that nop funds would be provided for sanctuary -- that no funds would be provided for sanctuary cities. they made that public back in december early in the month. to the committee we wrote that no funds for executive amnesty

policy should be provided in this bill, no funds for the daca program to carry out that amnesty program be included, that no funds -- no spending of funds in the immigration examinations fee account for anything other than nationalization and immigration benefits to be provided by congress. it would bar funds for salaries of bill appointees or other employees who direct law officers to violate the law. why should we be paying people who direct their own subordinates to violate fundamental immigration law? no funds should be used to grant prosecutorial discretion to aliens in removal proceedings. that no funds for an extension of temporary protected status be expended unless approved by congress. that no funds to abuse -- to the

parole authority has a real abuse in this parole authority, and so it said we shouldn't be funding these abusive practices that undermine the certainty of immigration law. that no funds to grant h-1b visas to companies that have replaced american workers. that restrictions on the issuance of the employment authorization documents, make sure those have integrity. that no new countries in the visa waiver program be admitted until implementation of a biometric exit system. there is some money that goes to a biometric exit system, which if this administration will act, would begin to do something significant, but they have resisted what the 9/11 commission has said we must have, that when people come into the country, they are clocked in, they are fingerprinted, they are biometrically identified, but nobody checks if they left.

so you can come into america on a visa and never go home. this is why almost half of the people illegally in america today came lawfully on a visa. they just didn't return when they were supposed to. we wanted to establish as a -- there is a victims advocacy unit in the immigration and customs enforcement service to protect illegally immigrants, give them all kinds of additional rights that we haven't provided before to people who enter the country unlawfully. so we say well, let's have one for victims of immigrant crimes. and there are several of them. all i will say is this -- this

subcommittee, i and others, have raised a series of important issues that need to be fixed and should receive if understood by the american people 90% support. nor grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee of which my subcommittee is a part, has also been active in these things. it is a deep disappointment that this last piece of legislation that could make some improvement in a number of these issues will do nothing of significance, but it will increase by fourfold the number of low-skilled, low-wage workers allowed to enter their country from 66,000 to 254,000. they will pull down wages and reduce the job prospects of struggling americans. mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor.

i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowskims. murkowski: mr., ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i would ask unanimous consent that this request be agreed to and that this request be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. most of us are busy today reviewing the contents of the omnibus appropriations bill that was released late last night -- actually early this morning. i've come to the floor this afternoon with my colleague from washington, the ranking member on the energy and natural resources committee, to speak about the wildfire provisions and more specifically i'm here to explain why we chose not to accept a flawed proposal from the administration and to really

be here to -- to give i think hope and optimism about a path forward for next year. i think it goes without saying that our nation's wildfire epidemic is a serious challenge. it demands tax from each one of us. -- demands attention from each one of us. each year the fire season seems to include new "worse" and shatters the records that are out there. 2015 has been particularly devastating. it seems like we didn't have a wildfire season, we had a wildfire year. and we all know that we've seen too much acreage burned, too many western communities have suffered damage and, tragically, lives lost. according to the national interagency fire center, more than 9.4 million acres of our country has burned through october 30 of this year. in alaska, where most of these fires occur, we've lost over 5 million acres during this period.

for perspective, that's about the size of the state of connecticut. that's what we saw burn in alaska alone this year. those of us whose states are impacted by wildfire all started this year in agreement, that what we needed to do here was address a broken system. that the way wildfire management has been funded is broken and that it's past time that we fixed it. we know we can't continue to underfund fire suppression only then to scramble to borrow money to fight fires. and this all goes on while the fires are burning out of control many times. and we know that what we need to do is end this very disruptive and unsustainable cycle of fire borrowing. it -- it drains funds from other programs as the agency is seeking resources. this fire borrowing concept is the one area i think that we

have all been able to come together, whether it's those within the agencies, those of us that are looking to address policy, the appropriators, we've got to figure out how we're going to stop the fire borrowing that goes on within the various accounts in an effort to respond to these wildfires. earlier this year, as the chairman of the interior spprops committee, i set out to fix this very broken system. and under my direction, our committee reported out a bill to do just that. the interior appropriations bill included a permanent, fiscally responsible fix for fire borrowing. it would have provided resources to the agencies upfront, enough funding to fully cover the average annual cost of fire fighting over the past 10 years. it also allows for a limited cap adjustment when we have these truly catastrophic fire years. the bill simultaneously increased funding for fire

prevention efforts. it took steps also to return to active forest management. we thought that this was -- this was not only a sound approach but addressed the fire borrowing but also the forest management issues that so many of us are concerned about. but unfortunately we ran into a wall with the house of representatives. they wouldn't accept the language because of the limited cap adjustment. so instead, what we did is we worked across the chambers within the appropriations committee to provide an unprecedented level of funding to address wildfires in the omnibus. now, as i said, i'm still going through the omnibus myself and -- and trying to figure out whether to support the overall bill. but i do think that it's important to -- to recognize and understand what we have included in this omnibus. the wildfire provisions are both responsible and pragmatic.

and -- and the thing that's so important is it provides real money now. and it gives us the time to develop longer term real solutions. the bill includes $1.6 billion for fire suppression. this is $600 million over the average cost of wildfire fighting for the past 10 years. so it's $600 million over the 10-year average. it also includes $545 million for hazardous fuels reduction, and it also includes $360 million for the forest service timber program which helps us, again, resume this active management of our forests. so what -- what we have in this omnibus bill is more funding for wildfire than was spent during the 2015 fire season. and, again, that was one of the

most expensive fire seasons in history. so when you think about what we've done, borrowing -- barring a truly record-setting fire season in 2016, fire borrowing should not be an issue for us in the rest of this fiscal year. we did this the right way, the way that congress should deal with the government's responsibility, by making cuts elsewhere to pay for this within the budget. and, again, this is -- this is real money. this is money that is available immediately because we have done this through the appropriations process. now, we have had many conversations, senator cantwell and myself, many on -- many in this body who were -- were hoping to see a different propose. the house had a proposal. colleagues here in the senate had a proposal, the administration had a proposal.

and they were hoping that it could be factored into the omnibus. but for a number of reasons, it was not included within the bill and i think that that was a good thing. the proposal in question would have amended the stafford act to expand the purposes for emergency funding for major disasters to include fighting wildfires on federal lands. the house had included a similar idea in a forestry bill that it passed earlier in the year. but the irony here is this is a measure that the administration is -- was now supporting but they came out very strongly against this back in july, just a few months ago. the president's advisors issued a statement of administration policy objecting to the repurposing of the stafford act and the use of the disaster relief fund for wildfire suppression operations. in september, the director of fema wrote an opinion piece

about this and he said that tapping the disaster relief fund for wildfires would -- quote -- "undermine the federal government's ability to budget for and fund responses to disasters as well as to finance state and tribal public infrastructure recovery projects." that's what the fema director said in september. the secretary of interior, the secretary of ag, the head of o.m.b. echoed that in a letter where they said -- quote -- "we do not believe that congress should modify the robert t. stafford disaster relief and emergency assistance act as a means to addressing the escalating costs of wildfire." so they have -- they have apparently changed their tune with regards to use of the stafford act. here we are just a few months later, the administration is now proposing to amend the stafford act. anded to this -- do this amendment -- and to do this -- to do this amendment in relatively short order where lots of things are happening where, unfortunately, not many are getting enough sleep.

so the -- the concerns, again, are -- have been echoed by many. the first i think important reminder here is the stafford act itself is designed to provide federal assistance to state, local and tribal governments to alleviate disaster suffering and facilitate recovery after a disaster has occurred. there is no precedent for accessing it to provide emergency money for disasters on federal lands. the second concern we've got is that this proposal doesn't actually end the fire borrowing. that's what we're trying to do here. what it does is create an account that is separate from the disaster relief fund that is subject to appropriations, which means that it's now empty. that fund may be there but there's nothing in it and it could remain empty. there's no guarantee that the

appropriations will be there to fund the account or that the president will ever request funds for it. and if there's no funds in the accounts, then basically what you have to assume is that the agencies are going to have to borrow again. so we haven't fixed the borrowing. we have an average of 68,000 fires each year and under this proposal, each one could require a separate presidential declaration once the initial appropriation runs out. so, i mean, how -- you just have to ask the question, how does this actually work then? does the forest service chief have to -- have to estimate how much each fire is going to cost? what happens in the meantime, while you've got all these fire burnings? again, the agencies are going to be in a situation where they're going to be look to borrowing. now, even if we assume that federal dollars will be appropriated to the fund that's envisioned by this proposal and that the president will make a disaster declaration after he's asked to do so by cabinet

officials, we're still setting another troubling precedent here. the administration will effectively be able to decide to give itself money under the stafford act. this is not like giving an individual money after they have suffered a disaster or loss to their home or property. this is the administration being able to decide to give itself money. so the question is, is do we really think that's a smart thing? finally, i think that this proposal is a missed opportunity. it was supposed to be coupled with a set of productive forest management reforms. and what we saw i think is a good start. there are forest reforms in there. but from alaska's perspective, and, again, we're a state where we have had half of all of the acreage burned this year. so we're looking to find some substantive reforms. not very much in this to get excited about for alaska, where we have both a wildfire problem

and a timber problem. the proposal also does too little to help our firefighters or our communities which are at physical risk from wildfires and economic risk from restrictions on timber harvesting. and i -- i -- i'm certainly not alone in this. again, senator cantwell has -- has spoken very passionately on this issue, not only in committee but here on the floor. i'm going to -- to yield to her in just a moment here. we heard from a representative from the international association of fire chiefs who said, due to the rapidly rising cost of wildland fire suppression, iafc, the international association of fire chiefs, is concerned that the disaster relief fund could run out of money as it's also used to address hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other emergencies. we've also heard from nonprofit organization called the firefighters united for safety, ethics and ecology. their letter to congressional leaders observes that, allowing

agencies to declare wildfires as disasters simply to access near unlimited funding for suppression will undermine efforts that have been long in the making to shift agencies towards alternative proactive strategies in fire preparedness, in planning, fuels reduction and forest restoration. so, mr. president, i want to find a solution to the fire budgeting problem as much as anyone in this chamber. but the proposal that surfaced during the budget negotiations was not the right way to go. it was not developed in -- in the open and transparent manner that we would hope. it was not fully vetted. it's drawn opposition from -- from not only members here but outside groups whose members are on the ground actual fighting these fires -- actually fighting these fires. so the solution was to do what we have done, which is fully fund fire fighting within the budget that we were given. the -- the omnibus is -- is our

path forward on wildfire funding for this year. it devotes greater resources to fire prevention and hazardous fuels reduction. it contains real money, not an empty account, that will be available immediately, and we can use the window that it provides to develop the long-term solutions. and this is where i want to -- to give encouragement to other members. i am committed, i am committed, as i know that senator cantwell is, to working to address the longer-term solutions to these issues. i'm here today to affirm that wildfire management legislation will be a top priority for those of us on the energy and natural resources committee next year. i know that we come at this from different perspectives. but that's okay. let's bring our different perspectives, work

collaboratively with all members to develop a commonsense bill that properly addresses the challenges, that addresses the concerns that senator cantwell has articulated when it comes to active forest management, that addresses the concerns that we have with how we deal with our hazardous fuels, how we work on the front end to prevent these catastrophic fires. but we need to be working together towards these solutions, and i certainly make that commitment with senator -- with my ranking member to advance early on in the new year these -- these -- these provisions that i think will make a difference, and i know that senator cantwell again wants to be part of not only the solution here but has been so much a part of the solution as we have worked together in the committee.

and with that, mr. president, i know that from -- from the energy and natural resources committee perspective, we have got a lot on our plate, but i think that from my perspective as a senator from alaska, this is an issue that the people in my state feel very passionately about, and i would just ask senator cantwell from a priority perspective for the people of washington, as we deal with the pressing issues that we will have before us, is this -- is this an area where we can come together as an energy committee to address these -- these very immediate concerns? ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: responding to my colleague from alaska -- and i will make a longer statement in a second -- i do want to thank her for her leadership, not just as chairwoman of the energy and natural resources committee but also as the chairwoman of the

interior appropriations subcommittee appropriations, so thank you for your detailing out of exactly why it's so important to have real money up front. you're right for you and i and many western states, we have seen a change in fire habit and we have seen probably two of the worst fire seasons our country has seen in many, many, many years, and the fact that this year's season may trump that. so it's very important that we give the agencies the tools to address this issue and that we give them the tools now. not a guessing game, not how much they might get, how much they might borrow but how much they have now, and i think the 50% plusup is a recognition of how dire the situation is and making sure that these communities know that they get those resources. so yes, i would say from having

a hearing in the state, i thank the chairwoman for allowing the committee to have a hearing. senator barrasso participated at a very critical moment and also a very pad moment because it was just days after we learned that we lost firefighters in the central part of our state, and i would say that she is then having a committee hearing. we have committee hearings. my staff has attended what was called a wildfire and summit. the whole central part of our state participated in that summit. so your question is, is this important to us? i think when you have a rain forest that catches on fire and you have parts of alaska that have never burned that are up in smoke, you bet this is of critical importance to both our states and to many western states. so i thank you for the question and thank you for helping to get real resources on the table and

a 50% increase over last year's fire budget. thank you. ms. murkowski: mr. president? i know that senator cantwell had a longer statement that she would like to include at this point in time. i certainly yield to senator cantwell. ms. cantwell: well, thank you, mr. president. again, i thank my colleague, senator murkowski, for her leadership on the senate energy and natural resources committee and thank you for her discussion of fighting wildfires in the united states of america, and i think she gave a great rendition hats off to appropriators. i don't always understand all the accounts and all the issues, but i can tell you this -- what we need is real money and that's what she has provided, so i thank her for that. i thank her partner on the subcommittee, the senator from new mexico, senator udall. working together had to provide a framework in which the omnibus reflects an appropriation that we'll vote on later this week

containing $1.6 billion for fire funding suppression. that's $500 million more than last year, so i consider it a very good down payment. congress has recognized that it's very important to provide funding for fire suppression and that at sufficient levels so that agencies can address the issues of prevention and hazardous fuel reduction. and this is something that is critically important. so i'm pleased that this is a very large increase in firefighting accounts this year, besides the 50% increase in fire sup pregnancy. as my colleague mentioned, a $317 million in hazardous fuel reduction and new grants to local communities to decrease their fire hazards, additional fuel reduction projects like controlled burns in our forests and research on protecting homes

during massive wildfires. this is critically important to my state as they have over the last two seasons implemented many programs that they call hasty response or fuel reduction where they have been able to show that certain treatments in communities have actually been able to save communities and neighborhoods who have done such treatment. the challenge becomes how do you educate the rest of the community, the rest of the state on the vital importance of doing this fuel reduction? so it's very important that we continue -- and i will yield. i see the -- leader mcconnell on the floor. i will yield. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i thank the senator from washington. i will be very brief. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h. res. 78 which was received from the house, that the resolution be read a third time and the senate vote on passage

of the resolution with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.j. res. 78, joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2016, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the resolution is agreed to. is there further debate on the resolution? if not, all in favor say aye. mr. mcconnell: aye. the presiding officer: opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the majority leader be recognized -- be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions on wednesday, december 16. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i want to continue and just again thank the chairwoman of the energy and natural resources and the subcommittee appropriations interior committee on the fact that this is real money today, a 50% increase without the necessity for a future declaration of disaster, without a future appropriations request, without hit -- pitting disaster states against each other on every disaster, but some predictability on this increase about how to move forward for the 2016 firefighting season. so it's very important as she mentioned that we continue to focus on a variety of issues and resolution. stopping the way that we continue to erode funds from other accounts but ensuring there are considerations of cost and oversight for large and expensive fires, integrating forest research to better

prioritize where prevention money goes, increasing controlled burns on our federal lands, ensuring personnel and equipment can operate seemlessly across jurisdictions during wildfires, funding for community preparedness and fire wise activities, funding for risk mapping, providing technology on all large fires to ensure managers know in real time the location of the fires and our firefighters, upgrading our air tanker system. we saw a lot of this. we heard a lot about our air tanker system during our committee hearings, that there was much more we could be doing. establishing surge capacity. we heard a lot from our local communities that joined in the fight, that they are more than willing to join in this effort of helping us fight wildfires, but that we need to have the capacity and the training, ensuring communications. nothing was more frustrating in

some of these wildfires to have no broadband communication and yet to be in charge of all the evacuation for the region without the ability to communicate to the people that needed to be evacuated. so it's critically important that we have on the ground communication systems available day one. doing treatments when risks are low, this is a particular issue for our state. we want to make sure that we have cooperation in working with other agencies, that we don't want to do fire treatment when we're in drought conditions and high temperatures and dry, dry, dry conditions, but when there are less risks. we want to do mapping to clearly identify where the risks are, and we want to use technology for safety and effectiveness like g.p.s. and other systems that can be used from the air and modifying the individual assistance program. i say that because various communities that have been hardest hit by our fires have been in rural communities, but

the way the definition works under our current law basically has prejudice against a community if it in fact is not dense enough to meet the current requirement. i would say that the ranking member and myself have probably -- even the presiding officer -- have very rural communities that can be devastated by fires. that means an entire community may be based on recreation or outdoor or any kinds of outdoor activities could be so devastated and yet would be left without the resources simply because they didn't meet a population density number. so to me, we need to address this because these communities are integral parts of our larger united states and the economic stability of many of our states. so we want to continue to make these improvements in our system, and my colleagues and i on the energy and natural resources committee, as i said, the chairwoman allowed several hearings to take place and we want to continue the efforts in

working with our colleagues to make sure that we are moving forward on this issue and providing all the resources that we can. i'd also just like to address one issue, and that is we're not going to get at this overall solution by simply clearcutting large swaths of land in which we haven't made the right assessments. i say that just because we have had so many issues in the state of washington where dangerous erosion has taken place in those circumstances, but it is clear that we all agree that massive fuel reduction does need to take place. so i look forward to working with my colleague on that because there are many ways in which we can prevent and fight our national wildland fires. i look forward to working with senator murkowski, and again just thank her for getting us real money, a 50% increase that

doesn't require another declaration, doesn't require a future event. it's there. we can start using it. and now let's go to work with our colleagues in defining how we do hazardous fuel reduction in the most aggressive way possible, giving our communities better tools to fight these fires in the future and working to make sure that we have the best equipment and the best resources for those individuals who are fighting those fires. i thank the president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from washington for not only her comments here this evening but really leadership and guidance in this area. when your state is hard hit by these disasters, you learn a lot. you learn a lot about the process and what works and unfortunately what doesn't work. when you cannot get a cat to run a fire break because it doesn't have the appropriate card or designation, people come to us

and say well, that's crazy. and you have to agree, it is crazy. we can do better. when we are talking about the issue of wildland fire and management, it is this management piece that i really hope that we can get to, because it's not just about throwing more money at the fires and hoping we get it right. it's making sure that not only with suppression dollars are we prioritizing and getting it right, but that we're working aggressively to deal with the prevention, with hazardous fuels reduction, with actively managing these issues. that's how we're going to be making the headway. that's where we need to be working collaboratively. whether you are from a very open and remote and large state like alaska or whether you are a

state that sees smaller fires but just catastrophic impact to your local economies. and i know that senator cantwell has articulated that very, very clearly within the committee. so we've got our work cut out in front of us. i had worked on a statement that included no shortage of fire puns and needing to put a damper on this ten-alarm fire that was out there, but i decided that the issue of fire was not a joke or a laughing matter for anybody. we've got a lot of work to do. i'm ready to do it. i'm rolling up my sleeves, and i'm looking forward to a lot of cooperation from colleagues as we address this very important priority. with that, mr. speaker, i yield the floor, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.