[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 36 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1548-S1565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CARDIN:
S. 538. A bill to amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act to reauthorize the Act; to the
[[Page S1549]]
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This bill promotes long-term
conservation, education, research, monitoring, and habitat protection
for more than 350 species of neotropical migratory birds that breed in
North America in the summer and spend our winters in tropical climates
south of our border. Through its successful competitive, matching grant
program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports public-private
partnerships to countries mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. Up
to one quarter of the funds may be awarded for domestic projects.
This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory
birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by
consuming billions of harmful insect pests each year. These vulnerable
bird populations face many environmental factors such as pesticide
pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and invasive species that threaten
their habitat and, ultimately, their survival. As good indicators of a
healthy ecosystem, it is troubling that, according to the National
Audubon Society, at least 29 species of migratory birds are
experiencing significant population declines. For example, populations
of the Cerulean Warbler and Olive-Sided Flycatcher have declined as
much as 70 percent since surveys began in the 1960s.
The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of my home state of Maryland,
has been experiencing a decline in population despite being protected
by Federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the
State of Maryland's Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act.
Destruction of their domestic breeding habitat and tropical winter
habitat, coupled with the toxic pesticides ingested by insects which
are then eaten by the Oriole, has significantly contributed to this
decline. It is essential that we invest in conservation efforts in our
country as well as others along the migratory route of the wide range
of migratory birds. This legislation accomplishes this goal.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track
record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies
for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United
States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. According to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, between 2002 and 2010, this program has
successfully supported 333 projects, coordinated by groups in 48 U.S.
State/territories and 36 countries. Additionally, it is a great value
for taxpayers as it leverages over $4.00 for each Federal dollar spent.
Since 2002, the U.S. has invested more than $25 million in 262 projects
and leveraged an additional $112 million in partner funds to support
these projects. It also helps to generate $2.7 billion annually for the
U.S. economy through wildlife watching activities.
This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a
highly successful Federal program. This simple reauthorization bill
will make sure that this good work continues.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 538
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD
CONSERVATION ACT.
Section 10 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 6109) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this Act such sums as are necessary for each of
fiscal years 2012 through 2017.
``(b) Use of Funds.--Of the amounts made available under
subsection (a) for each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent
shall be expended for projects carried out at a location
outside of the United States.''.
______
By Mr. BEGICH:
S. 542. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize
space-available travel on military aircraft for members of the reserve
components, a member or former member of a reserve component who is
eligible for retired pay but for age, widows and widowers of retired
members, and dependents; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Space
Available Equity Act.
Members and retirees of the National Guard and Reserve, their
families, and surviving military spouses make great sacrifices for our
nation. However, too often these individuals do not receive the
benefits they have earned for their service.
In Alaska, the National Guard conducts more search and rescue
missions in the most challenging terrain than any other state. They
save lives every day in their state role and frequently deploy just
like their active duty counter-parts. The demands on our reserve
component have been higher than ever before. Yet members of the reserve
components and ``gray area'' retirees, National Guardsman or Reservist
eligible for retirement but under the age of 60, have limited travel
privileges on Department of Defense aircraft under current regulation.
Their space-available travel benefits are restricted to the continental
United States and are not extended to their dependents, unlike active
duty members and retirees.
Surviving spouses of a military member eligible for retired pay
retain no space-available travel privileges at all after the death of
their spouse, despite having made a lifetime commitment to the military
or in many cases, lost their loved one in war. In Alaska, we understand
how important surviving spouses are. The Tragedy Assistance Program, or
as it's more commonly known--TAPS, was founded in my State.
To correct these inequities, I am re-introducing the National Guard,
Reserve, ``Gray Area'' Retiree, and Surviving Spouse Space-available
Travel Equity Act. This bill will give these deserving individuals
comprehensive and equitable space-available travel privileges on
Department of Defense aircraft. The bill is endorsed by the National
Guard Association of the United States.
I urge my colleagues to join me in giving parity to our reserve
component members and surviving military spouses.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 542
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Guard, Reserve,
``Gray Area'' Retiree, and Surviving Spouses Space-available
Travel Equity Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF RESERVE MEMBERS, GRAY-AREA RETIREES,
WIDOWS AND WIDOWERS OF RETIRED MEMBERS, AND
DEPENDENTS FOR SPACE-AVAILABLE TRAVEL ON
MILITARY AIRCRAFT.
(a) Eligibility.--Chapter 157 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2641b the
following new section:
``Sec. 2641c. Space-available travel on Department of Defense
aircraft: reserve members, reserve members eligible for
retired pay but for age; widows and widowers of retired
members and dependents
``(a) Reserve Members.--A member of a reserve component
holding a valid Uniformed Services Identification and
Privilege Card shall be provided transportation on Department
of Defense aircraft, on a space-available basis, on the same
basis as active duty members of the uniformed services under
any other provision of law or Department of Defense
regulation.
``(b) Reserve Retirees Under Applicable Eligibility Age.--A
member or former member of a reserve component who, but for
being under the eligibility age applicable to the member
under section 12731 of this title, otherwise would be
eligible for retired pay under chapter 1223 of this title
shall be provided transportation on Department of Defense
aircraft, on a space-available basis, on the same basis as
members of the armed forces entitled to retired pay under any
other provision of law or Department of Defense regulation.
``(c) Widows and Widowers of Retired Members.--
``(1) In general.--An unremarried widow or widower of a
member of the armed forces described in paragraph (2) shall
be provided transportation on Department of Defense aircraft,
on a space-available basis, on the same basis as members of
the armed forces entitled to retired pay under any other
provision of law or Department of Defense regulation.
[[Page S1550]]
``(2) Members covered.--A member of the armed forces
referred to in paragraph (1) is a member who--
``(A) is entitled to retired pay;
``(B) dies in line of duty while on active duty and is not
eligible for retired pay; or
``(C) in the case of a member of a reserve component, dies
as a result of a line of duty condition and is not eligible
for retired pay.
``(d) Dependents.--A dependent of a member or former member
described in either subsections (a) or (b) or of a deceased
member entitled to retired pay holding a valid Uniformed
Services Identification and Privilege Card and a surviving
unremarried spouse and the surviving dependent of a deceased
member or former member described in subsection (b) holding a
valid Uniformed Services Identification and Privilege Card
shall be provided transportation on Department of Defense
aircraft, on a space-available basis, if the dependent is
accompanying the member or, in the case of a deceased member,
is the surviving unremarried spouse of the deceased member or
is a dependent accompanying the surviving unremarried spouse
of the deceased member.
``(e) Definition of Dependent.--In this section, the term
`dependent' has the meaning given that term in section 1072
of this title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2641b the following new item:
``2641c. Space-available travel on Department of Defense aircraft:
reserve members, reserve members eligible for retired pay
but for age; widows and widowers of retired members and
dependents.''.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
McCain, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and
Mr. Burr):
S. 543. A bill to restrict any State or local jurisdiction from
imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services, providers, or
property; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Wireless Tax
Fairness Act and I am delighted and honored to be joined in this effort
by Senators Snowe, Gillibrand, Ensign, Menendez, McCain, Burr, and
Senator Nelson from Florida.
I want to start with an interesting fact that I read a few months
ago, which is that over 20 percent of Americans have gotten rid of
their land line telephone service in favor of wireless mobile
technology. Unfortunately, as more and more people make this shift,
they are being forced to pay higher and higher state and local taxes
for their wireless service. Since 2007 the average wireless tax rate
consumers have to pay rose by 1.1 percentage points, from 15.2 percent
to 16.3 percent. At a time when the Federal Government is trying to
improve consumer access to developing technologies and broadband
Internet in particular, does it make sense to have local, state, and
Federal Governments forcing higher taxes on them? The answer is no,
especially as 3G and 4G emerge as dominant wireless technologies. These
taxes only act to hurt consumers, stifle innovation in the wireless
industry, and restrict access to the Internet.
In order to make sure that wireless technology can continue to
flourish I am introducing the Wireless Tax Fairness Act. This
legislation will keep American companies competitive by putting the
brakes on unfair wireless tax increases--allowing American companies to
remain leaders in innovation, making it easier for Americans to afford
these services and providing an affordable way for consumers to access
the Internet. The technology that is developed and deployed in America
paves the way for the same American technology to be deployed overseas,
creating and sustaining good American jobs.
In an era when a new cellphone, smartphone, or tablet is introduced
nearly every month it is essential that the market for these products
is determined by consumers and not by disproportionately high taxes. 17
percent of American families earning less than $30,000 rely on a
wireless device to access the Internet. The deployment and availability
of such services needs to be encouraged by keeping prices affordable
for both individuals and businesses through a fair and reasonable tax
regime.
In order to make sure that our walk is consistent with our talk on
promoting American innovation, it is time to place a moratorium on
discriminatory wireless taxes and fees. I hope our colleagues will join
us in supporting this bill.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 544. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
a study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the role of
the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the National Parks, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resoruces.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and
Senator Boxer to introduce the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks
Study Act. This legislation is an important step in preserving the
legacy of the Army's first all-black infantry and cavalry units and
their unique role in the creation of our National Park system.
The Buffalo Soldiers served bravely in campaigns both at home and
abroad before being stationed at the military Presidio in San Francisco
and being given charge of patrolling the National Park system. Although
first tasked with taming the frontier, these troops also took on the
responsibility of preserving that wilderness for future generations.
Each summer, Buffalo Soldier regiments traveled roughly 320 miles from
San Francisco to either Sequoia or Yosemite National Park, where they
patrolled the parks for poachers and loggers, built trails, and
escorted visitors. They were, in essence if not in name, the nation's
first park rangers.
In a time of segregation and adversity, these soldiers served their
country bravely and the National Parks they worked to establish are
part of the legacy they leave behind. Unfortunately, this unique aspect
of their history is neither widely recognized nor remembered. This
legislation would address that by authorizing a study to determine the
most appropriate way to memorialize the Buffalo Soldiers. Money
procured under the act would be used to determine the feasibility of
establishing a national historic trail along the route traveled by the
Buffalo Soldiers, scout for properties to add to the National Register
of Historic Places, and develop educational initiatives and a public
awareness campaign about the contribution of African-American soldiers
after the Civil War.
Although the experiences of the Buffalo Soldiers are an important
piece of our national history, we are in danger of losing their legacy
to the passage of time unless we take conscious steps to preserve the
memory. This legislation works to ensure that the contributions of the
Buffalo Soldiers will be remembered and shared by all. I urge my
colleagues to join me in their support for this measure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 544
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Buffalo Soldiers in the
National Parks Study Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) In the late 19th century and early 20th century,
African-American troops who came to be known as the Buffalo
Soldiers served in many critical roles in the western United
States, including protecting some of the first National
Parks.
(2) Based at the Presidio in San Francisco, Buffalo
Soldiers were assigned to Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks
where they patrolled the backcountry, built trails, stopped
poaching, and otherwise served in the roles later assumed by
National Park rangers.
(3) The public would benefit from having opportunities to
learn more about the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks
and their contributions to the management of National Parks
and the legacy of African-Americans in the post-Civil War
era.
(4) As the centennial of the National Park Service in 2016
approaches, it is an especially appropriate time to conduct
research and increase public awareness of the stewardship
role the Buffalo Soldiers played in the early years of the
National Parks.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to authorize a
study to determine the most effective ways to increase
understanding and public awareness of the critical role that
the Buffalo Soldiers played in the early years of the
National Parks.
SEC. 3. STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and
interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early
years of the National Parks.
[[Page S1551]]
(b) Contents of Study.--The study shall include--
(1) a historical assessment, based on extensive research,
of the Buffalo Soldiers who served in National Parks in the
years prior to the establishment of the National Park
Service;
(2) an evaluation of the suitability and feasibility of
establishing a national historic trail commemorating the
route traveled by the Buffalo Soldiers from their post in the
Presidio of San Francisco to Sequoia and Yosemite National
Parks and to any other National Parks where they may have
served;
(3) the identification of properties that could meet
criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places or criteria for designation as National Historic
Landmarks;
(4) an evaluation of appropriate ways to enhance historical
research, education, interpretation, and public awareness of
the story of the Buffalo Soldiers' stewardship role in the
National Parks, including ways to link the story to the
development of National Parks and the story of African-
American military service following the Civil War; and
(5) any other matters that the Secretary of the Interior
deems appropriate for this study.
(c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after funds are made
available for the study, the Secretary of the Interior shall
submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report containing the study's
findings and recommendations.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Carper, and Mr.
Brown of Massachusetts).
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S1551, March 10, 2011, the Record reads: By Ms. Collins,
Mr. Cardin, . . .
The online Record has been corrected to read: By Ms. Collins,
Mr. Carper, . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
S. 550. A bill to improve the provision of assistance to fire
departments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today Senators Collins, Carper, Brown,
and I are pleased to introduce the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of
2011 to ensure that firefighters and emergency medical service
personnel serving communities across the nation are repaid for the
sacrifices they make every day with the best possible training and
equipment--particularly given the budget cuts many communities have
been forced to make in these economically uncertain times.
The bill we present to the Senate reauthorizes the Assistance to
Firefighters, AFG, program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response program, SAFER, two highly successful programs I
worked to establish in 2000 and 2003. This is bipartisan legislation
that has won overwhelming Senate support in previous years. As we all
know, our first responders make great sacrifices for us. Firefighters
in communities of all shapes and sizes have assumed a greater role in
overall national emergency preparedness since September 11 and the
Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. They now serve as the frontline of
defense in many communities for disasters of all types. More than ever,
firefighters need the training and equipment to deal not only with
fires but also with hazardous materials; nuclear, radioactive, and
explosive devices; and other potential threats.
The responsibilities placed on firefighters have only grown more
demanding. Firefighters respond more and more to medical emergencies--
15.8 million in 2008, a 213 percent increase from 1980. Right here in
Washington, D.C., at Fire Engine Company 10--known as the ``House of
Pain'' for its grueling schedule--80 percent of the calls are for
medical emergencies. Our nation's firefighters--like other first
responders--are the first to arrive and the last to leave whenever
trouble hits. They deserve all the support we can give them.
Unfortunately, they do not always get it. Firefighters often lack the
equipment and vehicles they need to do their jobs safely and
effectively. In 2006 the U.S. Fire Administration reported that 60
percent of fire departments did not have enough breathing apparatuses
to equip all firefighters on a shift, 65 percent did not have enough
portable radios, and 49 percent of all fire engines were at least 15
years old.
We can and must do more for these brave men and women. We must make
sure they have what they need to protect their communities and
themselves as they perform a very dangerous job. Our bill takes much-
needed steps to ensure that they do.
To start with, because career, volunteer, and combination fire
departments all suffer from shortages in equipment, vehicles, and
training, our bill requires that each type receives at least 25 percent
of the available AFG grant funding. The remaining funds will be
allocated based on factors such as risk and the needs of individual
communities and the country as a whole. This creates an appropriate
balance, ensuring that funds are directed at departments facing the
most significant risks while guaranteeing that no department is left
out.
We have also taken a number of steps in our bill to help fire
departments in communities struggling with economic difficulties. In
many cases, local governments have reduced spending on vital services,
including fire departments. Among other things, these cuts have
prevented many departments from replacing old equipment and forced them
to lay off needed firefighters. To help departments rebuild, we have
lowered the matching requirements for AFG and SAFER. Departments are
still required to match some of their grant awards with funds of their
own--ensuring they have some skin in the game--but the reduced amount
will make it easier for them to accept awards.
We have similarly created an economic hardship waiver for both grant
programs that will allow FEMA to waive certain requirements, such as
requiring that grantees provide matching funds, for departments in
communities that have been especially hard hit by tough economic times.
Our bill contains a number of other important provisions. It raises
the maximum grant amounts available under AFG. As commonsense would
suggest, large communities often require a substantial amount of
equipment, and they will now be able to apply for funding in amounts
more in line with what they need.
Our bill would provide funding for national fire safety organizations
and institutions of higher education that wish to create joint programs
establishing fire safety research centers. There is a great need for
research devoted to fire safety and prevention and improved technology.
The work these centers do will help us reduce fire casualties among
firefighters and civilians and make communities safer.
But as important as it is to help our firefighters, we must also
demand accountability when we spend taxpayer dollars. For this reason,
we require that FEMA create performance management systems for these
programs, complete with quantifiable metrics that will allow us to see
how well they perform. Going forward, this will allow us to see what
works in these programs and what does not so that we can make needed
improvements when required.
We have also included provisions to prevent earmarks from being
attached to these programs. AFG and SAFER have never been earmarked--an
impressive accomplishment--and we want to keep it that way. The funding
for these programs needs to go to firefighters, not pet projects.
Finally, this legislation authorizes $950 million each for these
vital programs. This is actually less than what was authorized in the
past. We believe that supporting our Nation's firefighters and
emergency medical service responders ought to be a priority, but we
recognize that these tough fiscal times require some belt-tightening.
Authorizing funding for AFG and SAFER at these amounts sends the
message that Congress can direct funding where it is needed while also
showing discipline.
This legislation ensures that fire departments get the support they
need to protect their communities while also protecting taxpayer
dollars. It addresses a vital national need while increasing
accountability to the public. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the reauthorization of these important programs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 550
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fire Grants Reauthorization
Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 4 of the Federal Fire Prevention
and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2203) is amended--
[[Page S1552]]
(1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, except as otherwise
provided,'' after ``means'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking `` `Director' means'' and
all that follows through ``Agency;'' and inserting ``
`Administrator of FEMA' means the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency;'';
(3) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by inserting ``Indian tribe,'' after ``county,''; and
(B) by striking ``and `firecontrol' '' and inserting ``and
`fire control' '';
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (9) as
paragraphs (7) through (10), respectively;
(5) by inserting after paragraph (5), the following:
``(6) `Indian tribe' has the meaning given that term in
section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b) and `tribal' means of or
pertaining to an Indian tribe;'';
(6) by redesignating paragraphs (9) and (10), as
redesignated by paragraph (4), as paragraphs (10) and (11);
(7) by inserting after paragraph (8), as redesignated by
paragraph (4), the following:
``(9) `Secretary' means, except as otherwise provided, the
Secretary of Homeland Security;'';
(8) by amending paragraph (10), as redesignated by
paragraph (6), to read as follows:
``(10) `State' has the meaning given the term in section 2
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Administrator of fema.--The Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended by
striking ``Director'' each place it appears and inserting
``Administrator of FEMA''.
(2) Administrator of fema's award.--Section 15 of such Act
(15 U.S.C. 2214) is amended by striking ``Director's Award''
each place it appears and inserting ``Administrator's
Award''.
SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER GRANTS.
Section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act
of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 33. FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Available grant funds.--The term `available grant
funds', with respect to a fiscal year, means those funds
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in subsection (p)(1) for such fiscal year less any funds used
for administrative costs pursuant to subsection (p)(2) in
such fiscal year.
``(2) Career fire department.--The term `career fire
department' means a fire department that has an all-paid
force of firefighting personnel other than paid-on-call
firefighters.
``(3) Combination fire department.--The term `combination
fire department' means a fire department that has--
``(A) paid firefighting personnel; and
``(B) volunteer firefighting personnel.
``(4) Firefighting personnel.--The term `firefighting
personnel' means individuals, including volunteers, who are
firefighters, officers of fire departments, or emergency
medical service personnel of fire departments.
``(5) Nonaffiliated ems organization.--The term
`nonaffiliated EMS organization' means a public or private
nonprofit emergency medical services organization that is not
affiliated with a hospital and does not serve a geographic
area in which the Administrator of FEMA finds that emergency
medical services are adequately provided by a fire
department.
``(6) Paid-on-call.--The term `paid-on-call' with respect
to firefighting personnel means firefighting personnel who
are paid a stipend for each event to which they respond.
``(7) Volunteer fire department.--The term `volunteer fire
department' means a fire department that has an all-volunteer
force of firefighting personnel.
``(b) Assistance Program.--
``(1) Authority.--In accordance with this section, the
Administrator of FEMA may, in consultation with the
Administrator of the United States Fire Administration,
award--
``(A) assistance to firefighters grants under subsection
(c); and
``(B) fire prevention and safety grants and other
assistance under subsection (d).
``(2) Administrative assistance.--The Administrator of FEMA
shall--
``(A) establish specific criteria for the selection of
grant recipients under this section; and
``(B) provide assistance with application preparation to
applicants for such grants.
``(c) Assistance to Firefighters Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA may, in
consultation with the chief executives of the States in which
the recipients are located, award grants on a competitive
basis directly to--
``(A) fire departments, for the purpose of protecting the
health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel
throughout the United States against fire, fire-related, and
other hazards;
``(B) nonaffiliated EMS organizations to support the
provision of emergency medical services; and
``(C) State fire training academies for the purposes
described in subparagraphs (G), (H), and (I) of paragraph
(3).
``(2) Maximum grant amounts.--
``(A) Population.--The Administrator of FEMA may not award
a grant under this subsection in excess of amounts as
follows:
``(i) In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction
with 100,000 people or fewer, the amount of the grant awarded
to such recipient shall not exceed $1,000,000 in any fiscal
year.
``(ii) In the case of a recipient that serves a
jurisdiction with more than 100,000 people but not more than
500,000 people, the amount of the grant awarded to such
recipient shall not exceed $2,000,000 in any fiscal year.
``(iii) In the case of a recipient that serves a
jurisdiction with more than 500,000 but not more than
1,000,000 people, the amount of the grant awarded to such
recipient shall not exceed $3,000,000 in any fiscal year.
``(iv) In the case of a recipient that serves a
jurisdiction with more than 1,000,000 people but not more
than 2,500,000 people, the amount of the grant awarded to
such recipient shall not exceed $6,000,000 for any fiscal
year.
``(v) In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction
with more than 2,500,000 people, the amount of the grant
awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $9,000,000 in any
fiscal year.
``(B) State fire training academies.--The Administrator of
FEMA may not award a grant under this subsection to a State
fire training academy in an amount that exceeds $1,000,000 in
any fiscal year.
``(C) Aggregate.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B) and except as provided under clause (ii), the
Administrator of FEMA may not award a grant under this
subsection in a fiscal year in an amount that exceeds the
amount that is one percent of the available grant funds in
such fiscal year.
``(ii) Exception.--The Administrator of FEMA may waive the
limitation in clause (i) with respect to a grant recipient if
the Administrator of FEMA determines that such recipient has
an extraordinary need for a grant in an amount that exceeds
the limit under clause (i).
``(3) Use of grant funds.--Each entity receiving a grant
under this subsection shall use the grant for one or more of
the following purposes:
``(A) To train firefighting personnel in--
``(i) firefighting;
``(ii) emergency medical services and other emergency
response (including response to natural disasters, acts of
terrorism, and other man-made disasters);
``(iii) arson prevention and detection;
``(iv) maritime firefighting; or
``(v) the handling of hazardous materials.
``(B) To train firefighting personnel to provide any of the
training described under subparagraph (A).
``(C) To fund the creation of rapid intervention teams to
protect firefighting personnel at the scenes of fires and
other emergencies.
``(D) To certify--
``(i) fire inspectors; and
``(ii) building inspectors--
``(I) whose responsibilities include fire safety
inspections; and
``(II) who are employed by or serving as volunteers with a
fire department.
``(E) To establish wellness and fitness programs for
firefighting personnel to ensure that the firefighting
personnel are able to carry out their duties as firefighters.
``(F) To fund emergency medical services provided by fire
departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations.
``(G) To acquire additional firefighting vehicles,
including fire trucks and other apparatus.
``(H) To acquire additional firefighting equipment,
including equipment for--
``(i) fighting fires with foam in remote areas without
access to water; and
``(ii) communications, monitoring, and response to a
natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made
disaster, including the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
``(I) To acquire personal protective equipment, including
personal protective equipment--
``(i) prescribed for firefighting personnel by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the
Department of Labor; or
``(ii) for responding to a natural disaster or act of
terrorism or other man-made disaster, including the use of a
weapon of mass destruction.
``(J) To modify fire stations, fire training facilities,
and other facilities to protect the health and safety of
firefighting personnel.
``(K) To educate the public about arson prevention and
detection.
``(L) To provide incentives for the recruitment and
retention of volunteer firefighting personnel for volunteer
firefighting departments and other firefighting departments
that utilize volunteers.
``(M) To support such other activities, consistent with the
purposes of this subsection, as the Administrator of FEMA
determines appropriate.
``(d) Fire Prevention and Safety Grants.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of assisting fire
prevention programs and supporting firefighter health and
safety research and development, the Administrator of FEMA
may, on a competitive basis--
``(A) award grants to fire departments;
``(B) award grants to, or enter into contracts or
cooperative agreements with, national, State, local, tribal,
or nonprofit organizations that are not fire departments and
that are recognized for their experience and expertise with
respect to fire prevention or fire safety programs and
activities and firefighter research and development programs,
for the purpose of carrying out--
``(i) fire prevention programs; and
[[Page S1553]]
``(ii) research to improve firefighter health and life
safety; and
``(C) award grants to, or enter into contracts with,
regionally accredited institutions of higher education and
national fire service organizations or national fire safety
organizations to support joint programs focused on reducing
firefighter fatalities and non-fatal injuries, including
programs for establishing fire safety research centers as the
Administrator of FEMA determines appropriate.
``(2) Maximum grant amount.--A grant awarded under this
subsection may not exceed $1,500,000 for a fiscal year.
``(3) Use of grant funds.--Each entity receiving a grant
under this subsection shall use the grant for one or more of
the following purposes:
``(A) To enforce fire codes and promote compliance with
fire safety standards.
``(B) To fund fire prevention programs.
``(C) To fund wildland fire prevention programs, including
education, awareness, and mitigation programs that protect
lives, property, and natural resources from fire in the
wildland-urban interface.
``(D) In the case of a grant awarded under paragraph
(1)(C), to fund the establishment or operation of--
``(i) a fire safety research center; or
``(ii) a program at such a center.
``(E) To support such other activities, consistent with the
purposes of this subsection, as the Administrator of FEMA
determines appropriate.
``(e) Applications for Grants.--
``(1) In general.--An entity seeking a grant under this
section shall submit to the Administrator of FEMA an
application therefor in such form and in such manner as the
Administrator of FEMA determines appropriate.
``(2) Elements.--Each application submitted under paragraph
(1) shall include the following:
``(A) A description of the financial need of the applicant
for the grant.
``(B) An analysis of the costs and benefits, with respect
to public safety, of the use for which a grant is requested.
``(C) An agreement to provide information to the national
fire incident reporting system for the period covered by the
grant.
``(D) A list of other sources of funding received by the
applicant--
``(i) for the same purpose for which the application for a
grant under this section was submitted; or
``(ii) from the Federal Government for other fire-related
purposes.
``(E) Such other information as the Administrator of FEMA
determines appropriate.
``(3) Joint or regional applications.--
``(A) In general.--Two or more entities may submit an
application under paragraph (1) for a grant under this
section to fund a joint program or initiative, including
acquisition of shared equipment or vehicles.
``(B) Nonexclusivity.--Applications under this paragraph
may be submitted instead of or in addition to any other
application submitted under paragraph (1).
``(C) Guidance.--The Administrator of FEMA shall--
``(i) publish guidance on applying for and administering
grants awarded for joint programs and initiatives described
in subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) encourage applicants to apply for grants for joint
programs and initiatives described in subparagraph (A) as the
Administrator of FEMA determines appropriate to achieve
greater cost effectiveness and regional efficiency.
``(f) Peer Review of Grant Applications.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA shall, after
consultation with national fire service and emergency medical
services organizations, appoint fire service personnel and
personnel from nonaffiliated EMS organizations to conduct
peer reviews of applications received under subsection
(e)(1).
``(2) Assignment of reviews.--In administering the peer
review process under paragraph (1), the Administrator of FEMA
shall ensure that--
``(A) applications submitted by career fire departments are
reviewed primarily by personnel from career fire departments;
``(B) applications submitted by volunteer fire departments
are reviewed primarily by personnel from volunteer fire
departments;
``(C) applications submitted by combination fire
departments and fire departments using paid-on-call
firefighting personnel are reviewed primarily by personnel
from such fire departments; and
``(D) applications for grants to fund emergency medical
services pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(F) are reviewed
primarily by emergency medical services personnel,
including--
``(i) emergency medical service personnel affiliated with
fire departments; and
``(ii) personnel from nonaffiliated EMS organizations.
``(3) Review of applications for fire prevention and safety
grants submitted by nonprofit organizations that are not fire
departments.--In conducting a review of an application
submitted under subsection (e)(1) by a nonprofit organization
described in subsection (d)(1)(B), a peer reviewer may not
recommend the applicant for a grant under subsection (d)
unless such applicant is recognized for its experience and
expertise with respect to--
``(A) fire prevention or safety programs and activities; or
``(B) firefighter research and development programs.
``(4) Applicability of federal advisory committee act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to activities carried out pursuant to this subsection.
``(g) Prioritization and Allocation of Grant Awards.--In
awarding grants under this section, the Administrator of FEMA
shall--
``(1) consider the findings and recommendations of the peer
reviews carried out under subsection (f);
``(2) consider the degree to which an award will reduce
deaths, injuries, and property damage by reducing the risks
associated with fire-related and other hazards;
``(3) consider the extent of the need of an applicant for a
grant under this section and the need to protect the United
States as a whole;
``(4) consider the number of calls requesting or requiring
a fire fighting or emergency medical response received by an
applicant; and
``(5) ensure that of the available grant funds--
``(A) not less than 25 percent are awarded to career fire
departments;
``(B) not less than 25 percent are awarded to volunteer
fire departments; and
``(C) not less than 25 percent are awarded to combination
fire departments and fire departments using paid-on-call
firefighting personnel.
``(h) Additional Requirements and Limitations.--
``(1) Funding for emergency medical services.--Not less
than 3.5 percent of the available grant funds for a fiscal
year shall be awarded under this section for purposes
described in subsection (c)(3)(F).
``(2) Grant awards to nonaffiliated ems organizations.--Not
more than 2 percent of the available grant funds for a fiscal
year shall be awarded under this section to nonaffiliated EMS
organizations.
``(3) Funding for fire prevention and safety grants.--For
each fiscal year, not less than 10 percent of the aggregate
of grant amounts under this section in that fiscal year shall
be awarded under subsection (d).
``(4) State fire training academies.--Not more than 3
percent of the available grant funds for a fiscal year shall
be awarded under subsection (c)(1)(C).
``(5) Amounts for purchasing firefighting vehicles.--Not
more than 25 percent of the available grant funds for a
fiscal year may be used to assist grant recipients to
purchase vehicles pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(G).
``(i) Further Considerations.--
``(1) Assistance to firefighters grants to fire
departments.--In considering applications for grants under
subsection (c)(1)(A), the Administrator of FEMA shall
consider the extent to which the grant would enhance the
daily operations of the applicant and the impact of such a
grant on the protection of lives and property.
``(2) Applications from nonaffiliated ems organizations.--
In the case of an application submitted under subsection
(e)(1) by a nonaffiliated EMS organization, the Administrator
of FEMA shall consider the extent to which other sources of
Federal funding are available to the applicant to provide the
assistance requested in such application.
``(3) Awarding fire prevention and safety grants to certain
organizations that are not fire departments.--In the case of
applicants for grants under this section who are described in
subsection (d)(1)(B), the Administrator of FEMA shall give
priority to applicants who focus on--
``(A) prevention of injuries to high risk groups from fire;
and
``(B) research programs that demonstrate a potential to
improve firefighter safety.
``(4) Avoiding duplication.--The Administrator of FEMA
shall review lists submitted by applicants pursuant to
subsection (e)(2)(D) and take such actions as the
Administrator of FEMA considers necessary to prevent
unnecessary duplication of grant awards.
``(j) Matching and Maintenance of Expenditure
Requirements.--
``(1) Matching requirement for assistance to firefighters
grants.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
an applicant seeking a grant to carry out an activity under
subsection (c) shall agree to make available non-Federal
funds to carry out such activity in an amount equal to not
less than 15 percent of the grant awarded to such applicant
under such subsection.
``(B) Exception for entities serving small communities.--In
the case that an applicant seeking a grant to carry out an
activity under subsection (c) serves a jurisdiction of--
``(i) more than 20,000 residents but not more than 50,000
residents, the applicant shall agree to make available non-
Federal funds in an amount equal to not less than 10 percent
of the grant award to such applicant under such subsection;
or
``(ii) 20,000 residents or fewer, the applicant shall agree
to make available non-Federal funds in an amount equal to not
less than 5 percent of the grant awarded to such applicant
under such subsection.
``(2) Matching requirement for fire prevention and safety
grants.--
``(A) In general.--An applicant seeking a grant to carry
out an activity under subsection (d) shall agree to make
available
[[Page S1554]]
non-Federal funds to carry out such activity in an amount
equal to not less than 5 percent of the grant awarded to such
applicant under such subsection.
``(B) Means of matching.--An applicant for a grant under
subsection (d) may meet the matching requirement under
subparagraph (A) through direct funding, funding of
complementary activities, or the provision of staff,
facilities, services, material, or equipment.
``(3) Maintenance of expenditures.--An applicant seeking a
grant under subsection (c) or (d) shall agree to maintain
during the term of the grant the applicant's aggregate
expenditures relating to the uses described in subsections
(c)(3) and (d)(3) at not less than 80 percent of the average
amount of such expenditures in the 2 fiscal years preceding
the fiscal year in which the grant amounts are received.
``(4) Waiver.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(C)(ii), the Administrator of FEMA may waive or reduce the
requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) in cases of
demonstrated economic hardship.
``(B) Guidelines.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA shall
establish and publish guidelines for determining what
constitutes economic hardship for purposes of this paragraph.
``(ii) Considerations.--In developing guidelines under
clause (i), the Administrator of FEMA shall consider, with
respect to relevant communities, the following:
``(I) Changes in rates of unemployment from previous years.
``(II) Whether the rates of unemployment of the relevant
communities are currently and have consistently exceeded the
annual national average rates of unemployment.
``(III) Changes in percentages of individuals eligible to
receive food stamps from previous years.
``(IV) Such other factors as the Administrator of FEMA
considers appropriate.
``(C) Certain applicants for fire prevention and safety
grants.--The authority under subparagraph (A) shall not apply
with respect to a nonprofit organization that--
``(i) is described in subsection (d)(1)(B); and
``(ii) is not a fire department or emergency medical
services organization.
``(k) Grant Guidelines.--
``(1) Guidelines.--For each fiscal year, prior to awarding
any grants under this section, the Administrator of FEMA
shall publish in the Federal Register--
``(A) guidelines that describe--
``(i) the process for applying for grants under this
section; and
``(ii) the criteria that will be used for selecting grant
recipients; and
``(B) an explanation of any differences between such
guidelines and the recommendations obtained under paragraph
(2).
``(2) Annual meeting to obtain recommendations.--
``(A) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Administrator
of FEMA shall convene a meeting of qualified members of
national fire service organizations and qualified members of
emergency medical service organizations to obtain
recommendations regarding the following:
``(i) Criteria for the awarding of grants under this
section.
``(ii) Administrative changes to the assistance program
established under subsection (b).
``(B) Qualified members.--For purposes of this paragraph, a
qualified member of an organization is a member who--
``(i) is recognized for expertise in firefighting or
emergency medical services;
``(ii) is not an employee of the Federal Government; and
``(iii) in the case of a member of an emergency medical
service organization, is a member of an organization that
represents--
``(I) providers of emergency medical services that are
affiliated with fire departments; or
``(II) nonaffiliated EMS providers.
``(3) Applicability of federal advisory committee act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to activities carried out pursuant to this subsection.
``(l) Accounting Determination.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, for purposes of this section, equipment
costs shall include all costs attributable to any design,
purchase of components, assembly, manufacture, and
transportation of equipment not otherwise commercially
available.
``(m) Eligible Grantee on Behalf of Alaska Native
Villages.--The Alaska Village Initiatives, a non-profit
organization incorporated in the State of Alaska, shall be
eligible to apply for and receive a grant or other assistance
under this section on behalf of Alaska Native villages.
``(n) Training Standards.--If an applicant for a grant
under this section is applying for such grant to purchase
training that does not meet or exceed any applicable national
voluntary consensus standards developed under section 647 of
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (6
U.S.C. 747), the applicant shall submit to the Administrator
of FEMA an explanation of the reasons that the training
proposed to be purchased will serve the needs of the
applicant better than training that meets or exceeds such
standards.
``(o) Ensuring Effective Use of Grants.--
``(1) Audits.--The Administrator of FEMA may audit a
recipient of a grant awarded under this section to ensure
that--
``(A) the grant amounts are expended for the intended
purposes; and
``(B) the grant recipient complies with the requirements of
subsection (j).
``(2) Performance assessment.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA shall develop
and implement a performance assessment system, including
quantifiable performance metrics, to evaluate the extent to
which grants awarded under this section are furthering the
purposes of this section, including protecting the health and
safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire
and fire-related hazards.
``(B) Consultation.--The Administrator of FEMA shall
consult with fire service representatives and with the
Comptroller General of the United States in developing the
assessment system required by subparagraph (A).
``(3) Annual reports to administrator of fema.--The
recipient of a grant awarded under this section shall submit
to the Administrator of FEMA an annual report describing how
the recipient used the grant amounts.
``(4) Annual reports to congress.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2012, and
each year thereafter through 2016, the Administrator of FEMA
shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Science and Technology of the House of Representatives a
report that provides--
``(i) information on the performance assessment system
developed under paragraph (2); and
``(ii) using the performance metrics developed under such
paragraph, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the grants
awarded under this section.
``(B) Additional information.--The report due under
subparagraph (A) on September 30, 2015, shall also include
recommendations for legislative changes to improve grants
under this section, including recommendations as to whether
the provisions described in section 5(a) of the Fire Grants
Reauthorization Act of 2011 should be extended to apply on
and after the date described in such section.
``(p) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section--
``(A) $950,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
``(B) for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2016, an amount
equal to the amount authorized for the previous fiscal year
increased by the percentage by which--
``(i) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the previous fiscal year, exceeds
``(ii) the Consumer Price Index for the fiscal year
preceding the fiscal year described in clause (i).
``(2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amounts appropriated
pursuant to paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the
Administrator of FEMA may use not more than 5 percent of such
amounts for salaries and expenses and other administrative
costs incurred by the Administrator of FEMA in the course of
awarding grants and providing assistance under this section.
``(3) Congressionally directed spending.--Consistent with
the requirements in subsections (c)(1) and (d)(1) that grants
under those subsections be awarded on a competitive basis,
none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this subsection
may be used for any congressionally directed spending item
(as such term is defined in paragraph 5(a) of rule XLIV of
the Standing Rules of the Senate).''.
SEC. 4. STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE.
(a) Improvements to Hiring Grants.--
(1) Term of grants.--Subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 34 of
the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15
U.S.C. 2229a) is amended by striking ``4 years'' and
inserting ``3 years''.
(2) Limitation on portion of costs of hiring
firefighters.--Subsection (a)(1)(E) of such section 34 is
amended by striking ``not exceed--'' and all that follows
through the period and inserting ``not exceed 75 percent in
any fiscal year.''.
(b) Clarification Regarding Eligible Entities for
Recruitment and Retention Grants.--The second sentence of
subsection (a)(2) of such section 34 is amended by striking
``organizations on a local or statewide basis'' and inserting
``national, State, local, or tribal organizations''.
(c) Maximum Amount for Hiring Firefighter.--Paragraph (4)
of subsection (c) of such section 34 is amended to read as
follows:
``(4) The amount of funding provided under this section to
a recipient fire department for hiring a firefighter in any
fiscal year may not exceed 75 percent of the usual annual
cost of a first-year firefighter in that department at the
time the grant application was submitted.''.
(d) Waivers.--Such section 34 is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (i) as
subsection (e) through (j), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Waivers.--
``(1) In general.--In a case of demonstrated economic
hardship, the Administrator of FEMA may--
``(A) waive the requirements of subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii) or
subsection (c)(1); or
``(B) waive or reduce the requirements in subsection
(a)(1)(E) or subsection (c)(2).
``(2) Guidelines.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA shall
establish and publish guidelines
[[Page S1555]]
for determining what constitutes economic hardship for
purposes of paragraph (1).
``(B) Considerations.--In developing guidelines under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator of FEMA shall consider,
with respect to relevant communities, the following:
``(i) Changes in rates of unemployment from previous years.
``(ii) Whether the rates of unemployment of the relevant
communities are currently and have consistently exceeded the
annual national average rates of unemployment.
``(iii) Changes in percentages of individuals eligible to
receive food stamps from previous years.
``(iv) Such other factors as the Administrator of FEMA
considers appropriate.''.
(e) Improvements to Performance Evaluation Requirements.--
Subsection (e) of such section 34, as redesignated by
subsection (d)(1) of this section, is amended by inserting
before the first sentence the following:
``(1) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA shall
establish a performance assessment system, including
quantifiable performance metrics, to evaluate the extent to
which grants awarded under this section are furthering the
purposes of this section.
``(2) Submission of information.--''.
(f) Report.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (f) of such section 34, as
redesignated by subsection (d)(1) of this section, is amended
by striking ``The authority'' and all that follows through
``Congress concerning'' and inserting the following: ``Not
later than September 30, 2015, the Administrator of FEMA
shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Science and Technology of the House of Representatives a
report on''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The heading for such subsection
(f) is amended by striking ``Sunset and Reports'' and
inserting ``Report''.
(g) Additional Definitions.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (i) of such section 34, as
redesignated by subsection (d)(1) of this section, is
amended--
(A) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``In
this section, the term--'' and inserting ``In this
section:'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``The term'' before `` `firefighter'
has''; and
(ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
(C) by striking paragraph (2); and
(D) by inserting at the end the following:
``(2) The terms `career fire department', `combination fire
department', and `volunteer fire department' have the meaning
given such terms in section 33(a).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (a)(1)(A) of such
section 34 is amended by striking ``career, volunteer, and
combination fire departments'' and inserting ``career fire
departments, combination fire departments, and volunteer fire
departments''.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (j) of such section 34, as
redesignated by subsection (d)(1) of this section, is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) $950,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
``(9) for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2016, an amount
equal to the amount authorized for the previous fiscal year
increased by the percentage by which--
``(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the previous fiscal year, exceeds
``(B) the Consumer Price Index for the fiscal year
preceding the fiscal year described in subparagraph (A).''.
(2) Administrative expenses.--Such subsection (j) is
further amended--
(A) in paragraph (9), as added by paragraph (1) of this
subsection, by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as
clauses (i) and (ii), respectively, and moving the left
margin of such clauses, as so redesignated, 2 ems to the
right;
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (9) as
subparagraphs (A) through (I), respectively, and moving the
left margin of such subparagraphs, as so redesignated, 2 ems
to the right;
(C) by striking ``There are'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--There are''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amounts appropriated
pursuant to paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the
Administrator of FEMA may use not more than 5 percent of such
amounts to cover salaries and expenses and other
administrative costs incurred by the Administrator of FEMA to
make grants and provide assistance under this section.''.
(3) Congressionally directed spending.--Such subsection (j)
is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Congressionally directed spending.--Consistent with
the requirement in subsection (a) that grants under this
section be awarded on a competitive basis, none of the funds
appropriated pursuant to this subsection may be used for any
congressionally direct spending item (as defined in paragraph
5(a) of Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate).''.
(i) Technical Amendment.--Such section 34 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2), by
striking ``Administrator shall'' and inserting
``Administrator of FEMA shall, in consultation with the
Administrator,''; and
(2) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears,
other than in subsection (a)(1)(A) and (a)(2), and inserting
``Administrator of FEMA''.
(j) Clerical Amendment.--Section 34 of such Act (15 U.S.C.
2229a) is amended by striking ``EXPANSION OF PRE-SEPTEMBER
11, 2001, FIRE GRANT PROGRAM'' and inserting the following:
``STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE''.
SEC. 5. SUNSET AND PRIOR PROVISIONS.
(a) Sunset.--Section 3 and subsections (a), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), and (h) of section 4, and the amendments made by
such section and subsections shall not apply on or after
October 1, 2016.
(b) Application of Prior Law.--On and after October 1,
2016, sections 33 and 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229 and 2229a) are amended to
read as such sections read on the day before the date of the
enactment of this Act, except that the amendments made by
subsections (b), (i), and (j) of section 4 shall continue to
apply to such section 34.
SEC. 6. REPORT.
Not later than September 30, 2015, the Comptroller General
of the United States shall submit to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives a report on the effect of the amendments made
by this Act. Such report shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the effect of the amendments made by
sections 3 and 4 on the effectiveness, relative allocation,
accountability, and administration of the grants awarded
under sections 33 and 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229 and 2229a) after the date
of the enactment of this Act .
(2) An evaluation of the extent to which the amendments
made by sections 3 and 4 have enabled recipients of grants
awarded under such sections 33 and 34 after the date of the
enactment of this Act to mitigate fire and fire-related and
other hazards more effectively.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am proud to once again cosponsor the
Fire Grants Reauthorization Act. I am pleased to join with Senators
Lieberman, Brown, and Carper in this effort to reauthorize these vital
programs. I have always been an ardent supporter of our Nation's fire
services. In addition to serving as a cochair of the Congressional Fire
Services Caucus, I was a cosponsor of the original FIRE Act, and an
original cosponsor of the FIRE Act reauthorization bills in 2004 and in
2010. Unfortunately, last year's bill did not become law.
The FIRE Act grants program provides fire departments with the
support they need to purchase equipment and vehicles, and to conduct
the training and exercises necessary to perform their jobs well.
Indeed, this is one of the most successful programs administered by the
Department of Homeland Security.
The FIRE Act grants program is an efficient and effective model for
delivering grant funding because it has a competitive process for
evaluating applications, which are peer-reviewed. It is also successful
because monies are provided directly to local fire departments. This
bipartisan legislation would retain and build upon these aspects of the
FIRE Act program that made it successful in the first place.
In visits across the State of Maine, I have seen first-hand how these
grants build the critical response capabilities of local fire
departments. Maine has received more than $50 million through the FIRE
Act grants program--a testament to the needs of our often rural,
volunteer fire departments and proof that the program is succeeding in
delivering funds to communities that need it most.
Independent analyses have confirmed that the FIRE Act grants program
has been effective. To quote a 2007 study by the National Academy of
Public Administration, ``From the standpoint of administrative
efficiency, there is broad agreement among stakeholders and observers
that the program has been well run. It is a positive case study in the
management of a grant program by a government agency.''
I believe this bill will increase the capabilities of our Nation's
fire services, and protect the thousands of firefighters and EMTs who
put their lives on the line every day.
______
By Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 552. A bill to reduce the Federal budget deficit by creating a
surtax on high income individuals and eliminating big oil and gas
company tax
[[Page S1556]]
loopholes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I will try to bring this budget debate
down to Earth and talk a little bit about the reality of what is
happening and go beyond the amount of numbers that are out there.
My good friend from Alabama who sits with me on the Budget Committee
makes the point that this country has a severe budget crisis. He is
right. The question is, How did we get to where we are today and how do
we go forward in a way that is fair and responsible to address it? In
that regard, the Senator from Alabama and I have very strong
disagreements.
How did we get to where we are today when not so many years ago, the
day George W. Bush became President, we had a significant surplus? We
had a surplus when Clinton left office. Now we have a major deficit
crisis. There are a number of reasons:
No. 1, against my vote, we are fighting a war in Iraq which, by the
time we take care of our last veteran, is going to cost us some $3
trillion. I didn't hear any of my Republican friends saying we can't go
to war unless we figure out a way to pay for it.
No. 2, my Republican friends for years have been pushing huge tax
breaks for the very wealthiest people. I didn't hear them ask how that
was going to be paid for.
No. 3, under President Bush, with strong Republican support and
against my vote, Congress passed a $400 billion-plus Medicare Part D
prescription drug program, written by the insurance companies and the
drug companies. It drove up the deficit.
No. 4, against my vote, Congress voted for a massive bailout of Wall
Street. I didn't hear too many people talking about how we would pay
for that, $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I didn't hear them
arguing that it was too much money and it would drive up the deficit.
Yesterday, the Republicans brought forth and voted on H.R. 1. Almost
all of them voted for it. Those who did not actually wanted to go
further.
The main point I wish to make is, A, we do have to address the
deficit crisis, but, B, we have to address it in a way that is fair and
responsible and not solely on the backs of working families, the middle
class, the elderly, the sick, and the poor. That is immoral. That is
wrong. That is bad economics.
To my mind, it is absolutely absurd that when my Republican friends
talk about deficit reduction, they forget to talk about the reality
that the wealthiest people have never had it so good; that the
effective, the real tax rate for the richest people is the lowest on
record; and that the wealthiest people, the top 2 percent, have
received many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks.
I ask my Republican friends, why do they want to balance the budget
on the backs of low-income children, low-income senior citizens, those
who are sick, those who are vulnerable, without asking the wealthiest
people who have never had it so good to put one penny into deficit
reduction? I think that is wrong, and the American people think that is
wrong. When we talk about deficit reduction, we have to talk about
shared sacrifice, everybody playing a role, not just little kids, not
just the elderly, not just the sick, but even--dare I say it--people
who have a whole lot of money and who have never done so well.
I have not been impressed at how the media has been covering this
issue. They have not made it clear to the American people how
devastating the cuts are that Republicans want to impose on working
families. Let me briefly tick off some of them.
The Republicans want to throw over 200,000 children off of the Head
Start Program. Every working family in America knows how hard it is
today to come up with affordable childcare, early childhood education.
We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized
world. The Republican solution is to slash Head Start by 20 percent,
cut 218,000 kids off of Head Start, and lay off 55,000 Head Start
instructors.
The cost of college education today is so high that many young people
are giving up their dream of going to college, while many others are
graduating deeply in debt. Republican solution: Slash Pell grants by
$5.7 billion and reduce or eliminate Pell grants for 9.4 million low-
income college students. Middle-class families, working-class families,
do they hear that? We are going to balance the budget by either
eliminating or lowering Pell grants--the ability of young people to go
to college--for over 9 million college students.
I know in my office we get calls every week from senior citizens,
people with disabilities, widows who are having a hard time getting a
timely response toward their Social Security claims. It takes too long
to process the paperwork. What the Republicans want to do is slash the
Social Security Administration, the people who administer Social
Security for seniors and the disabled, widows and orphans, by $1.7
billion. That means half a million Americans who are legally entitled
to Social Security benefits will have to wait significantly longer
times in order to receive them.
We have 50 million Americans with no health insurance today, and
45,000 Americans die because they don't get to a doctor in time. Last
year, as part of health care reform, I worked very hard with many
Members to expand community health centers so that more and more low-
and moderate-income people could walk into a doctor's office, get
health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, mental health
counseling. In H.R. 1, the bill they voted for yesterday, Republicans
want to deny primary health care to 11 million Americans at a time when
State after State is cutting back on Medicaid. What are you supposed to
do if you are 50 years old, you have a pain in your chest, and you
don't have any health insurance? Where do you go? Republicans want to
deny health care to another 11 million Americans.
For the poorest people, community services block grants provide the
infrastructure, the ability to get out emergency food help, emergency
help to pay the electric bill, LIHEAP. They are the infrastructure of
this country that protects the poorest and most vulnerable. Republicans
want to slash $405 million from the Community Services Block Grant
Program. That is wrong. And the President's proposed cut to the
community services block grant is also wrong.
In real terms, 16 percent of our population today is really
unemployed, if we add together the official unemployment--those people
who have given up looking for work, those people who work part time and
want to work full time. Republicans want to slash $2 billion in Federal
job-training programs.
Republicans want to slash $400 million in LIHEAP. That is the program
that in my State and all over the country enables people to stay warm
in the winter. We have a lot of senior citizens in Vermont getting by
on $13,000 or $14,000 a year in income. They need help. It gets cold in
Vermont. It gets 20 below zero. People don't have the income. LIHEAP is
a very valuable tool. Republicans want to slash $100 million for
LIHEAP.
They want to slash the EPA by 30 percent. These are the people who
have successfully enforced the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, so
that the air we breathe does not give us asthma, doesn't provide us
with the soup that makes us sick. The Clean Air Act has been an
enormous success in cleaning up our air. Republicans want to slash that
by 30 percent.
Republicans want to cut the WIC Program. This is the program that
provides supplemental nutrition for women, infants, and children. They
want to cut that by $750 million. Poverty in America is increasing.
What we understand is that if pregnant women and little kids do not get
good nutrition, the likelihood is that births might be low weight or
the little babies might come down with illnesses if they don't have
good nutrition. Poverty is increasing. Yet the Republicans want to cut
the WIC Program by $750 million--10 percent.
Title I education funding. Everybody understands we have problems
with education right now, with large dropout rates. Republicans want to
cut $5 billion from the Department of Education.
On and on and on it goes.
What do I think? Do I think it is appropriate we balance the budget
on low-income pregnant women and infants who need nutrition? Do I think
you should throw 200,000 kids off the
[[Page S1557]]
Head Start Program? Do I think we cut the Social Security
Administration severely? Do I think we cut Planned Parenthood, which
has done such a good job in preventing unwanted pregnancies? Does that
make sense? I do not think so. I do not think that is good for America.
But I do believe we have to move toward a balanced budget. So what is
one way to go forward, other than savage cuts on programs for the most
vulnerable people in this country? That is, I think we have to begin
talking about revenue, not just cuts.
Today I am introducing legislation which does two things. No. 1, it
creates a millionaire's surtax, which will be used strictly for deficit
reduction. It will be a 5.4-percent surtax on income over $1 million.
That says that all households that have income over $1 million will pay
a 5.4-percent surtax on that income, which will go into an emergency
deficit reduction fund. Just doing that--asking millionaires to pay a
little bit more in taxes, after all the huge tax breaks they have
received--will bring in approximately $50 billion a year.
I think that is a good idea, but it is not just me who thinks it is a
good idea. Recently, last week, there was an NBC News/Wall Street
Journal poll, and they asked the American people: What is the best way
to go forward on deficit reduction? Mr. President, 81 percent of the
American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable
to impose a surtax on millionaires to reduce the deficit.
The American people get it. They understand you cannot move toward
deficit reduction just by cutting programs that working families, the
middle class, and low-income people desperately need in order to
survive in the midst of this terrible recession. They understand
serious, responsible deficit reduction requires shared sacrifice. It is
insane--and I use that word advisably--it is insane to be talking about
deficit reduction, as my Republican friends do on one hand, and then
say: Oh, yes, we have to give hundreds and hundreds of billions of
dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent, the top 2 percent, when
those guys are doing phenomenally well, are seeing an effective tax
rate lower than it has been in decades and have received huge tax
breaks already.
Why does anyone think it is moral or right to move toward deficit
reduction on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable? I understand--
and I know something about politics--I do understand the parents of
kids who are in Head Start do not make large campaign contributions. I
know the senior citizens of this country who need some help with Social
Security do not make large campaign contributions. I understand that. I
understand college students, desperately trying to go through college
on a Pell grant, do not make large campaign contributions.
But there is a sense of morality we have to deal with. I think it
makes no sense, I think it is immoral, I think it is bad economics to
balance the budget on the backs of working families, while we give
continued tax breaks to those people who do not need it.
So today we are introducing a piece of legislation which I hope will
have strong support. I think it paves the way for us to go forward with
serious deficit reduction in a way that is fair. Do we need to make
cuts? Absolutely. But do we also need to ask the wealthiest people in
this country to start contributing toward deficit reduction? I think we
do.
Once again, the legislation I am introducing today creates a
millionaire's surtax of 5.4 percent, which would bring in about $50
billion a year, to be used exclusively for an emergency deficit
reduction fund.
We also end tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, which will
bring in about $3.5 billion a year. Over the past decade, the five
largest oil companies in the United States have earned nearly $1
trillion in profits. Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the very
largest oil companies in America have paid absolutely nothing in
Federal income taxes. In fact, some of them have actually gotten a
refund, a rebate from the IRS.
So that is my plea. My plea is that, yes, the need for deficit
reduction is real. It is urgent. Let's go forward, but let's go forward
in a way that is fair and responsible and not simply on the backs of
the most vulnerable people in this country.
______
By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Murray,
Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr.
Cardin, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Begich, Mr. Casey, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Coons):
S. 555. A bill to end discrimination based on actual or perceived
sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I wish to tell you about a teenager whom
I think you know about--Justin Aaberg--from our home State of
Minnesota. Yesterday should have been Justin's 16th birthday. Justin
was a kind young man, friendly and cheerful, a budding composer, but he
was also the target for bullies at his high school, who targeted him
because he was different--because he was gay.
I never had the opportunity to meet Justin. His family lost him to
suicide last summer. The Presiding Officer knows that. But you and I
have been privileged to meet his mother Tammy. I have been privileged
to meet her a few times. She is incredible. She has been speaking out
to protect other kids. Because, unfortunately, there are a lot of other
kids out there struggling to get through school as they suffer from
bullying and harassment and discrimination at their public schools.
Nine out of ten LGBT students are harassed or bullied or taunted in
school. This harassment deprives them of an equal education. They are
more likely to skip school, they are less likely to perform well
academically, and they are more likely to drop out before they graduate
from high school.
In some tragic cases, such as Justin's, the harassment of LGBT
students can even lead to suicide. We have seen this in all too many
cases all over the country, because, sadly, this problem is so much
broader than Justin. More than a third--more than a third--of lesbian,
gay, and bisexual youth have made a suicide attempt. More than a third.
That is horrifying beyond belief to me.
We are failing these kids. That is why I, along with 29 of my Senate
colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, have reintroduced the
Student Nondiscrimination Act today. While Federal civil rights laws
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion,
disability, and national origin, they do not expressly cover sexual
origin or gender identity. As a result, parents of LGBT students have
limited legal recourse when schools fail to protect their children from
harassment and bullying.
You might be wondering why I am mentioning bullying and
discrimination in the same breath. It is simple: When a school acts to
protect kids with disabilities from bullying but looks the other way
when LGBT kids are harassed by their peers, that is discrimination.
When school staff members participate in or encourage bullying of LGBT
youth, that is discrimination. When a principal excuses a bully who
torments an LGBT kid with ``boys will be boys,'' this is discrimination
and needs to stop. It needs to stop before more kids are hurt.
The Student Nondiscrimination Act would prohibit discrimination and
harassment in public schools based on sexual orientation and gender
identity. It would give LGBT students similar civil rights protections
against bullying and harassment as those that currently apply to
students based on characteristics such as race and gender.
This legislation would also provide meaningful remedies for
discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender
identity, modeled on Title IX's protection against discrimination and
harassment based on gender. Fifty years of civil rights history shows
that similar laws that contain such remedies are often most effective
in preventing discrimination from occurring in the first place. Like
other civil rights laws, the one we introduce today would prompt
schools to
[[Page S1558]]
avoid liability by taking proactive steps to prevent the discrimination
and bullying of students protected by the bill.
I guarantee you that when this bill is passed, nearly every school
district in this country is going to go to its lawyer and ask, ``How do
we come into compliance?'' I guarantee you that the U.S. Department of
Education will issue regulations, as it has under Title IX, so that
schools have guidance in how to protect these kids. The goal isn't for
any school to be sued for failing to protect kids from bullying and
harassment. The goal isn't for any school to come under Department of
Education scrutiny. The goal is for schools to do all they can to
ensure these incidents never happen in the first place.
Parents in Minnesota and across the country entrust their children to
public schools with the understanding that these schools will do
everything in their power to keep their children safe. When 9 in 10
LGBT kids are bullied at school, when they are three times more likely
than straight kids to feel unsafe at school, when one third of LGBT
kids say they have skipped a day of school in the last month because of
feeling unsafe, then we know that our public education system is not
fulfilling its most basic obligation to parents to keep children safe.
We have an obligation to do something about it.
Yesterday, Justin Aaberg from Minnesota should have celebrated his
16th birthday with family and friends. But instead, I know that his
family and friends were missing him terribly--are still missing him
terribly.
No child should have to go through the pain that Justin went through
at school. No mom or dad should have to go through the heartbreaking
pain that Justin's family has gone through. It is time. It is time that
we extend equal rights to LGBT students. We have the opportunity now,
as we reform No Child Left Behind--the ESEA, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act--to include this legislation. Our children
cannot afford for us to squander this opportunity. I urge my colleagues
to join me today in supporting the Student Non-Discrimination Act and
demanding protection for all of our children under the law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 555
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Student Non-Discrimination
Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Public school students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual,
or transgender (referred to in this Act as ``LGBT''), or are
perceived to be LGBT, or who associate with LGBT people, have
been and are subjected to pervasive discrimination, including
harassment, bullying, intimidation, and violence, and have
been deprived of equal educational opportunities, in schools
in every part of the Nation.
(2) While discrimination, including harassment, bullying,
intimidation, and violence, of any kind is harmful to
students and to the education system, actions that target
students based on sexual orientation or gender identity
represent a distinct and especially severe problem.
(3) Numerous social science studies demonstrate that
discrimination, including harassment, bullying, intimidation,
and violence, at school has contributed to high rates of
absenteeism, dropping out, adverse health consequences, and
academic underachievement, among LGBT youth.
(4) When left unchecked, discrimination, including
harassment, bullying, intimidation, and violence, in schools
based on sexual orientation or gender identity can lead, and
has led, to life-threatening violence and to suicide.
(5) Public school students enjoy a variety of
constitutional rights, including rights to equal protection,
privacy, and free expression, which are infringed when school
officials engage in or are indifferent to discrimination,
including harassment, bullying, intimidation, and violence,
on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
(6) While Federal statutory provisions expressly address
discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion,
disability, and national origin, Federal civil rights
statutes do not expressly address discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation or gender identity. As a result,
students and parents have often had limited recourse to law
for remedies for discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to ensure that all students have access to public
education in a safe environment free from discrimination,
including harassment, bullying, intimidation, and violence,
on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;
(2) to provide a comprehensive Federal prohibition of
discrimination in public schools based on actual or perceived
sexual orientation or gender identity;
(3) to provide meaningful and effective remedies for
discrimination in public schools based on actual or perceived
sexual orientation or gender identity;
(4) to invoke congressional powers, including the power to
enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and to provide
for the general welfare pursuant to section 8 of article I of
the Constitution and the power to make all laws necessary and
proper for the execution of the foregoing powers pursuant to
section 8 of article I of the Constitution, in order to
prohibit discrimination in public schools on the basis of
sexual orientation or gender identity; and
(5) to allow the Department of Education to effectively
combat discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender
identity in public schools, through regulation and
enforcement, as the Department has issued regulations under
and enforced title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and
other nondiscrimination laws in a manner that effectively
addresses discrimination.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS AND RULE.
(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act:
(1) Educational agency.--The term ``educational agency''
means a local educational agency, an educational service
agency, and a State educational agency, as those terms are
defined in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(2) Gender identity.--The term ``gender identity'' means
the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or
other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with
or without regard to the individual's designated sex at
birth.
(3) Harassment.--The term ``harassment'' means conduct that
is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive to limit a
student's ability to participate in or benefit from a program
or activity of a public school or educational agency, or to
create a hostile or abusive educational environment at a
program or activity of a public school or educational agency,
including acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression,
intimidation, or hostility, if such conduct is based on--
(A) a student's actual or perceived sexual orientation or
gender identity; or
(B) the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender
identity of a person with whom a student associates or has
associated.
(4) Program or activity.--The terms ``program or activity''
and ``program'' have the same meanings given such terms as
applied under section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d-4a) to the operations of public entities under
paragraph (2)(B) of such section.
(5) Public school.--The term ``public school'' means an
elementary school (as the term is defined in section 9101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) that is a
public institution, and a secondary school (as so defined)
that is a public institution.
(6) Sexual orientation.--The term ``sexual orientation''
means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.
(7) Student.--The term ``student'' means an individual who
is enrolled in a public school or who, regardless of official
enrollment status, attends classes or participates in the
programs or activities of a public school or educational
agency.
(b) Rule.--Consistent with Federal law, in this Act the
term ``includes'' means ``includes but is not limited to''.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION.
(a) In General.--No student shall, on the basis of actual
or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of such
individual or of a person with whom the student associates or
has associated, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
(b) Harassment.--For purposes of this Act, discrimination
includes harassment of a student on the basis of actual or
perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of such
student or of a person with whom the student associates or
has associated.
(c) Retaliation Prohibited.--
(1) Prohibition.--No person shall be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination, retaliation, or reprisal under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance based on
the person's opposition to conduct made unlawful by this Act.
(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection,
``opposition to conduct made unlawful by this Act''
includes--
(A) opposition to conduct reasonably believed to be made
unlawful by this Act;
(B) any formal or informal report, whether oral or written,
to any governmental entity, including public schools and
educational agencies and employees of the public schools or
educational agencies, regarding conduct made unlawful by this
Act or reasonably believed to be made unlawful by this Act;
[[Page S1559]]
(C) participation in any investigation, proceeding, or
hearing related to conduct made unlawful by this Act or
reasonably believed to be made unlawful by this Act; and
(D) assistance or encouragement provided to any other
person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or
protected by this Act,
if in the course of that expression, the person involved does
not purposefully provide information known to be false to any
public school or educational agency or other governmental
entity regarding conduct made unlawful, or reasonably
believed to be made unlawful, by this Act.
SEC. 5. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT; REPORT TO
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.
(a) Requirements.--Each Federal department and agency which
is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any
education program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or
contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is
authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of
section 4 with respect to such program or activity by issuing
rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which
shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the
statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection
with which the action is taken. No such rule, regulation, or
order shall become effective unless and until approved by the
President.
(b) Enforcement.--Compliance with any requirement adopted
pursuant to this section may be effected--
(1) by the termination of or refusal to grant or to
continue assistance under such program or activity to any
recipient as to whom there has been an express finding on the
record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure to comply
with such requirement, but such termination or refusal shall
be limited to the particular political entity, or part
thereof, or other recipient as to whom such a finding has
been made, and shall be limited in its effect to the
particular program, or part thereof, in which such
noncompliance has been so found; or
(2) by any other means authorized by law,
except that no such action shall be taken until the
department or agency concerned has advised the appropriate
person or persons of the failure to comply with the
requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be
secured by voluntary means.
(c) Reports.--In the case of any action terminating, or
refusing to grant or continue, assistance because of failure
to comply with a requirement imposed pursuant to this
section, the head of the Federal department or agency shall
file with the committees of the House of Representatives and
Senate having legislative jurisdiction over the program or
activity involved a full written report of the circumstances
and the grounds for such action. No such action shall become
effective until 30 days have elapsed after the filing of such
report.
SEC. 6. CAUSE OF ACTION.
(a) Cause of Action.--Subject to subsection (c), an
aggrieved individual may bring an action in a court of
competent jurisdiction, asserting a violation of this Act.
Aggrieved individuals may be awarded all appropriate relief,
including equitable relief, compensatory damages, and costs
of the action.
(b) Rule of Construction.--This section shall not be
construed to preclude an aggrieved individual from obtaining
remedies under any other provision of law or to require such
individual to exhaust any administrative complaint process or
notice of claim requirement before seeking redress under this
section.
(c) Statute of Limitations.--For actions brought pursuant
to this section, the statute of limitations period shall be
determined in accordance with section 1658(a) of title 28,
United States Code. The tolling of any such limitations
period shall be determined in accordance with the law
governing actions under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes
(42 U.S.C. 1983) in the State in which the action is brought.
SEC. 7. STATE IMMUNITY.
(a) State Immunity.--A State shall not be immune under the
11th Amendment to the Constitution from suit in Federal court
for a violation of this Act.
(b) Waiver.--A State's receipt or use of Federal financial
assistance for any program or activity of a State shall
constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th
Amendment or otherwise, to a suit brought by an aggrieved
individual for a violation of section 4.
(c) Remedies.--In a suit against a State for a violation of
this Act, remedies (including remedies both at law and in
equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent
as such remedies are available for such a violation in the
suit against any public or private entity other than a State.
SEC. 8. ATTORNEY'S FEES.
Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b))
is amended by inserting ``the Student Non-Discrimination Act
of 2011,'' after ``Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000,''.
SEC. 9. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.
(a) Federal and State Nondiscrimination Laws.--Nothing in
this Act shall be construed to preempt, invalidate, or limit
rights, remedies, procedures, or legal standards available to
victims of discrimination or retaliation, under any other
Federal law or law of a State or political subdivision of a
State, including title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), or
section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983). The
obligations imposed by this Act are in addition to those
imposed by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), and
section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983).
(b) Free Speech and Expression Laws and Religious Student
Groups.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter
legal standards regarding, or affect the rights available to
individuals or groups under, other Federal laws that
establish protections for freedom of speech and expression,
such as legal standards and rights available to religious and
other student groups under the First Amendment and the Equal
Access Act (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.).
SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or any application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, and the
application of the provision to any other person or
circumstance shall not be impacted.
SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act and shall not apply to conduct
occurring before the effective date of this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Casey,
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Franken, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Johnson of South
Dakota, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Udall of New
Mexico, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 558. A bill to limit the use of cluster munitions; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and
colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, and 20 co-sponsors to introduce
the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2011.
Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that
contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual
``bomblets.''
They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor
covering over a half mile radius.
But, in reality, they pose a deadly threat to innocent civilians.
Before I discuss our legislation, I would like to share a few stories
that show what these weapons can do.
Several months after the end of the Iraq war, Ahmed, 12 years old
from Kebala, Iraq, was walking with his 9-year-old brother and picked
up what he thought was just a shiny object, but was, in fact, a cluster
bomb.
It exploded and Ahmed lost his right hand and three fingers off his
left hand.
He also lost an eye and suffered shrapnel wounds to his torso and
head.
A young shepherd, Akim, 13 years old, from Al-Radwaniya, Iraq, was
playing on his parents' farm when it was hit by a cluster bomb attack.
He suffered burns to his lower limbs and multiple fractures to his
right leg.
His wounds became infected and he developed pressure ulcers.
In 2003, 30 years after the Vietnam war, Dan, 9 years old from
Phalanexay, Laos, was injured when he picked up and played with a
cluster bomb. It exploded.
He suffered massive abdominal trauma, multiple shrapnel wounds, and a
broken arm and leg.
Waleed Thamer, 10 years old, is from Iraq. In 2003, he was wounded by
a cluster bomb on his way to the local market.
He lost his right hand and suffered shrapnel wounds to his eyes,
neck, torso, and thighs.
These stories are deeply distressing. But they show us why our
legislation is necessary.
Our legislation places commonsense restrictions on the use of cluster
bombs. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions
that have a failure rate of more than 1 percent; and unless the rules
of engagement specify the cluster munitions will only be used against
clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians
are known to be
[[Page S1560]]
present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.
Finally, our legislation includes a national security waiver that
allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster
bombs with a failure rate of more than 1 percent, if he determines it
is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.
If the President issues the waiver, he must issue a report to
Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster bombs used
and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians.
If our bill is enacted, it will have an immediate impact.
Out of the 728.5 million cluster submunitions in the U.S. arsenal,
only 30,900 have self-destruct devices that would ensure a less than 1
percent dud rate.
Those submunitions account for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S.
total.
So, the technology exists for the U.S. to meet the 1 percent standard
but our arsenal consists overwhelmingly of cluster bombs with high
failure rates.
Simply put, our bill will help save lives.
As the above stories demonstrate, cluster bombs pose a real threat to
the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave
hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often
inaccurate.
Indeed, the human toll of these weapons has been terrible:
In Laos, approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children,
have been killed or injured by U.S. cluster munitions since the Vietnam
war ended.
In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians
lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the
age of 18.
An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed
by cluster munitions since 1991.
In the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of them
manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 343 civilians.
During the 2003 invasion of Baghdad, the last time the U.S. used
cluster munitions, these weapons killed more civilians than any other
type of U.S. weapon.
The U.S. 3rd Infantry Division described cluster munitions as
``battlefield losers'' in Iraq, because they were often forced to
advance through areas contaminated with unexploded duds.
During the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. cluster munitions caused more U.S.
troop casualties than any single Iraqi weapon system, killing 22 U.S.
servicemen.
Yet we have seen significant progress in the effort to protect
innocent civilians from these deadly weapons since we first introduced
this legislation in the 110th Congress.
In December 2008, 95 countries came together to sign the Oslo
Convention on Cluster Munitions which would prohibit the production,
use, and export of cluster bombs and requires signatories to eliminate
their arsenals within 8 years.
This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United
Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in
Afghanistan.
It includes 33 countries that have produced and used cluster
munitions.
To date, 108 countries have signed the convention and 48 have
ratified it.
It formally came into force on August 1, 2010.
In 2007, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a
provision from our legislation contained in the fiscal year 2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibiting the sale and transfer of
cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than 1 percent.
Congress extended this ban as a part of the Omnibus Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2009 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2010.
These actions will help save lives. But much more work remains to be
done and significant obstacles remain.
For one, the United States chose not to participate in the Oslo
process or sign the treaty.
The Pentagon continues to believe that cluster munitions are
``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''
It would prefer that the United States work within the Geneva-based
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, CCW, to negotiate limits on
the use of cluster munitions.
Yet these efforts have been going on since 2001 and it was the
inability of the CCW to come to any meaningful agreement which prompted
other countries, led by Norway, to pursue an alternative treaty through
the Oslo process.
A lack of U.S. leadership in this area has given cover to other major
cluster munitions producing nations--China, Russia, India, Pakistan,
Israel, and Egypt--who have refused to sign the Oslo Convention as
well.
Recognizing the United States could not remain silent in the face of
international efforts to restrict the use of cluster bombs, Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on cluster munitions in
June 2008 stating that after 2018, the use, sale and transfer of
cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent would be
prohibited.
The policy is a step in the right direction, but under the terms of
this new policy, the Pentagon will still have the authority to use
cluster bombs with high failure rates for the next 10 years.
That is unacceptable and runs counter to our values. The
administration should take another look at this policy.
In fact, on September 29, 2009, Senator Leahy and I were joined by 14
of our colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to
conduct a thorough review of U.S. policy on cluster munitions.
On April 14, 2010, we received a response from then National Security
Advisor Jim Jones stating that the administration will undertake this
review following the policy review on U.S. landmines policy.
The administration should complete this review without delay.
Let us not forget that the United States maintains an arsenal of an
estimated 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million
submunitions which have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15
percent.
What does that say about us, that we are still prepared to use, sell
and transfer these weapons with well-known failure rates?
The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist, that meet
the 1 percent standard. Why do we need to wait 10 years?
This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former
Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own policy on cluster
munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster
munitions must have a failure rate of less than 1 percent.
Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and
Secretary Gates' new policy essentially postpones any meaningful action
for another 10 years.
That means if we do nothing, by 2018 close to 20 years will have
passed since the Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly
weapons pose to innocent civilians.
We can do better.
Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by 7 years.
For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon
to enact a ban on the use of cluster bombs with failure rates of more
than 1 percent, I point out again that our bill allows the President to
waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to protect the
security of the United States to do so.
I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used
cluster bombs in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on their
use in Afghanistan since 2002.
We introduce this legislation to make this moratorium permanent for
the entire U.S. arsenal of cluster munitions.
We introduce this legislation for children like Hassan Hammade.
A 13-year-old Lebanese boy, Hassan lost four fingers and sustained
injuries to his stomach and shoulder after he picked up an unexploded
cluster bomb in front of an orange tree.
He said:
I started playing with it and it blew up. I didn't know it
was a cluster bomb--it just looked like a burned out piece of
metal.
All the children are too scared to go out now, we just play
on the main roads or in our homes.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We should do
whatever we can to protect more innocent children and other civilians
from these dangerous weapons.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
[[Page S1561]]
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 558
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Cluster Munitions Civilian
Protection Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS.
No funds appropriated or otherwise available to any Federal
department or agency may be obligated or expended to use any
cluster munitions unless--
(1) the submunitions of the cluster munitions, after
arming, do not result in more than 1 percent unexploded
ordnance across the range of intended operational
environments; and
(2) the policy applicable to the use of such cluster
munitions specifies that the cluster munitions will only be
used against clearly defined military targets and will not be
used where civilians are known to be present or in areas
normally inhabited by civilians.
SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.
The President may waive the requirement under section 2(1)
if, prior to the use of cluster munitions, the President--
(1) certifies that it is vital to protect the security of
the United States; and
(2) not later than 30 days after making such certification,
submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report,
in classified form if necessary, describing in detail--
(A) the steps that will be taken to protect civilians; and
(B) the failure rate of the cluster munitions that will be
used and whether such munitions are fitted with self-destruct
or self-deactivation devices.
SEC. 4. CLEANUP PLAN.
Not later than 90 days after any cluster munitions are used
by a Federal department or agency, the President shall submit
to the appropriate congressional committees a plan, prepared
by such Federal department or agency, for cleaning up any
such cluster munitions and submunitions which fail to explode
and continue to pose a hazard to civilians.
SEC. 5. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional
committees'' means the Committee on Foreign Relations, the
Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 560. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
deliver a meaningful benefit and lower prescription drug prices under
the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this Congress, members from both sides of
the aisle recognize the need to reduce the national deficit. Today, I
am introducing the Medicare Prescription Drugs Savings and Choice Act
of 2011, a bill that would save taxpayer dollars by giving Medicare
beneficiaries the choice to participate in a Medicare Part D
prescription drug plan run by Medicare, not private insurance
companies.
In 2003, Congress enacted the Medicare Modernization Act, which added
a long overdue prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Senior citizens
and people with disabilities were relieved to finally have coverage for
this important aspect of their healthcare needs.
The way the Part D program was structured under the original law, it
included a coverage gap known as the ``donut hole.'' Once an initial
coverage limit was reached, beneficiaries had to absorb 100 percent of
their drug costs until catastrophic coverage kicked in. That meant that
approximately 3.4 million seniors nationwide with the heaviest reliance
on prescription drugs faced the prospect of paying up to $4,000 out of
pocket before they qualified for further assistance from Medicare.
When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act last year, we made
significant improvements to the Medicare Part D program. Seniors who
hit the ``donut hole'' in 2010 received a one-time $250 check. This
helped 109,421 seniors in Illinois pay for their prescriptions during
the coverage gap. In addition, this year Medicare beneficiaries will
receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs in the donut hole,
and the donut hole will be fully closed by 2020. This means that
Illinois seniors will save $1.2 billion in out of pocket costs over the
next decade.
The bill I am introducing today would make yet another improvement to
the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The Part D program is not
structured like the rest of Medicare. For all other Medicare benefits,
seniors can choose whether to receive benefits directly through
Medicare or through a private insurance plan. The overwhelming majority
choose the Medicare-run option for their hospital and physician
coverage.
No such choice is available for prescription drugs. Medicare
beneficiaries must enroll in a private insurance plan to obtain drug
coverage.
In many regions, dozens of plan choices are available and each plan
has its own premium, cost-sharing requirements, list of covered drugs,
and pharmacy network. After you have identified the right drug plan,
you have to go through the whole process again at the end of the year
because your plan may have changed the drugs it covers or added new
restrictions on how to access covered drugs. Anyone who has visited a
senior center or spoken with an elderly relative knows that the
complexity of the drug benefit has created confusion.
Adding to the frustration with the program so far is accumulating
evidence that private drug plans have not been effective negotiators,
which means seniors and taxpayers end up paying more than they should.
We know that drug prices are higher in private Medicare drug plans
than drug prices available through the Veterans Administration,
Medicaid, and other countries like Canada.
The Veterans Administration has authority to directly negotiate with
drug companies, and as a result it has cut drug prices by as much as 50
percent. A study published in 2008 found that if Medicare negotiated
drug prices on behalf of seniors, $21.5 billion could be saved
annually.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Savings and Choice Act of 2011 would
provide a simple and stable way to obtain drug coverage, since the plan
Medicare-operated prescription drug plan would be available nationwide
every year, and would charge everyone the same premium.
It would also save money because the Secretary of Health and Human
Services would have the tools to design a formulary and negotiate
prices with drug companies. The best medical evidence would determine
which drugs are covered in the formulary, and it would be used to
promote safety, appropriate use of drugs, and value.
The bill would establish an appeals process that is efficient,
imposes minimal administrative burdens, and ensures timely procurement
of non-formulary drugs or non-preferred drugs when medically necessary.
The Secretary would also develop a system for paying pharmacies that
would include the prompt payment of claims.
Seniors want the ability to choose a Medicare-administered drug plan.
Let us give them this option--just as they have this choice with every
other benefit covered by Medicare.
A Medicare administered drug plan would create a ``win-win''
situation that could save billions of taxpayer dollars and provide a
high-quality affordable option to seniors.
Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 560
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Prescription Drug
Savings and Choice Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICARE OPERATED PRESCRIPTION DRUG
PLAN OPTION.
(a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part D of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act is amended by inserting after section
1860D-11 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) the following new section:
``medicare operated prescription drug plan option
``Sec. 1860D-11A. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this part, for each year (beginning with
2012), in addition to any plans offered under section 1860D-
11, the Secretary shall offer one or more Medicare operated
prescription drug plans (as defined in subsection (c)) with a
service area that consists of the entire United States and
shall enter into negotiations in accordance with subsection
(b) with pharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce the
[[Page S1562]]
purchase cost of covered part D drugs for eligible part D
individuals who enroll in such a plan.
``(b) Negotiations.--Notwithstanding section 1860D-11(i),
for purposes of offering a Medicare operated prescription
drug plan under this section, the Secretary shall negotiate
with pharmaceutical manufacturers with respect to the
purchase price of covered part D drugs in a Medicare operated
prescription drug plan and shall encourage the use of more
affordable therapeutic equivalents to the extent such
practices do not override medical necessity as determined by
the prescribing physician. To the extent practicable and
consistent with the previous sentence, the Secretary shall
implement strategies similar to those used by other Federal
purchasers of prescription drugs, and other strategies,
including the use of a formulary and formulary incentives in
subsection (e), to reduce the purchase cost of covered part D
drugs.
``(c) Medicare Operated Prescription Drug Plan Defined.--
For purposes of this part, the term `Medicare operated
prescription drug plan' means a prescription drug plan that
offers qualified prescription drug coverage and access to
negotiated prices described in section 1860D-2(a)(1)(A). Such
a plan may offer supplemental prescription drug coverage in
the same manner as other qualified prescription drug coverage
offered by other prescription drug plans.
``(d) Monthly Beneficiary Premium.--
``(1) Qualified prescription drug coverage.--The monthly
beneficiary premium for qualified prescription drug coverage
and access to negotiated prices described in section 1860D-
2(a)(1)(A) to be charged under a Medicare operated
prescription drug plan shall be uniform nationally. Such
premium for months in 2012 and each succeeding year shall be
based on the average monthly per capita actuarial cost of
offering the Medicare operated prescription drug plan for the
year involved, including administrative expenses.
``(2) Supplemental prescription drug coverage.--Insofar as
a Medicare operated prescription drug plan offers
supplemental prescription drug coverage, the Secretary may
adjust the amount of the premium charged under paragraph (1).
``(e) Use of a Formulary and Formulary Incentives.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to the operation of a
Medicare operated prescription drug plan, the Secretary shall
establish and apply a formulary (and may include formulary
incentives described in paragraph (2)(C)(ii)) in accordance
with this subsection in order to--
``(A) increase patient safety;
``(B) increase appropriate use and reduce inappropriate use
of drugs; and
``(C) reward value.
``(2) Development of initial formulary.--
``(A) In general.--In selecting covered part D drugs for
inclusion in a formulary, the Secretary shall consider
clinical benefit and price.
``(B) Role of ahrq.--The Director of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality shall be responsible for
assessing the clinical benefit of covered part D drugs and
making recommendations to the Secretary regarding which drugs
should be included in the formulary. In conducting such
assessments and making such recommendations, the Director
shall--
``(i) consider safety concerns including those identified
by the Federal Food and Drug Administration;
``(ii) use available data and evaluations, with priority
given to randomized controlled trials, to examine clinical
effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, safety, and
enhanced compliance with a drug regimen;
``(iii) use the same classes of drugs developed by the
United States Pharmacopeia for this part;
``(iv) consider evaluations made by--
``(I) the Director under section 1013 of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003;
``(II) other Federal entities, such as the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs; and
``(III) other private and public entities, such as the Drug
Effectiveness Review Project and Medicaid programs; and
``(v) recommend to the Secretary--
``(I) those drugs in a class that provide a greater
clinical benefit, including fewer safety concerns or less
risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same class
that should be included in the formulary;
``(II) those drugs in a class that provide less clinical
benefit, including greater safety concerns or a greater risk
of side-effects, than another drug in the same class that
should be excluded from the formulary; and
``(III) drugs in a class with same or similar clinical
benefit for which it would be appropriate for the Secretary
to competitively bid (or negotiate) for placement on the
formulary.
``(C) Consideration of ahrq recommendations.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary, after taking into
consideration the recommendations under subparagraph (B)(v),
shall establish a formulary, and formulary incentives, to
encourage use of covered part D drugs that--
``(I) have a lower cost and provide a greater clinical
benefit than other drugs;
``(II) have a lower cost than other drugs with same or
similar clinical benefit; and
``(III) drugs that have the same cost but provide greater
clinical benefit than other drugs.
``(ii) Formulary incentives.--The formulary incentives
under clause (i) may be in the form of one or more of the
following:
``(I) Tiered copayments.
``(II) Reference pricing.
``(III) Prior authorization.
``(IV) Step therapy.
``(V) Medication therapy management.
``(VI) Generic drug substitution.
``(iii) Flexibility.--In applying such formulary incentives
the Secretary may decide not to impose any cost-sharing for a
covered part D drug for which--
``(I) the elimination of cost sharing would be expected to
increase compliance with a drug regimen; and
``(II) compliance would be expected to produce savings
under part A or B or both.
``(3) Limitations on formulary.--In any formulary
established under this subsection, the formulary may not be
changed during a year, except--
``(A) to add a generic version of a covered part D drug
that entered the market;
``(B) to remove such a drug for which a safety problem is
found; and
``(C) to add a drug that the Secretary identifies as a drug
which treats a condition for which there has not previously
been a treatment option or for which a clear and significant
benefit has been demonstrated over other covered part D
drugs.
``(4) Adding drugs to the initial formulary.--
``(A) Use of advisory committee.--The Secretary shall
establish and appoint an advisory committee (in this
paragraph referred to as the `advisory committee')--
``(i) to review petitions from drug manufacturers, health
care provider organizations, patient groups, and other
entities for inclusion of a drug in, or other changes to,
such formulary; and
``(ii) to recommend any changes to the formulary
established under this subsection.
``(B) Composition.--The advisory committee shall be
composed of 9 members and shall include representatives of
physicians, pharmacists, and consumers and others with
expertise in evaluating prescription drugs. The Secretary
shall select members based on their knowledge of
pharmaceuticals and the Medicare population. Members shall be
deemed to be special Government employees for purposes of
applying the conflict of interest provisions under section
208 of title 18, United States Code, and no waiver of such
provisions for such a member shall be permitted.
``(C) Consultation.--The advisory committee shall consult,
as necessary, with physicians who are specialists in treating
the disease for which a drug is being considered.
``(D) Request for studies.--The advisory committee may
request the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or an
academic or research institution to study and make a report
on a petition described in subparagraph (A)(ii) in order to
assess--
``(i) clinical effectiveness;
``(ii) comparative effectiveness;
``(iii) safety; and
``(iv) enhanced compliance with a drug regimen.
``(E) Recommendations.--The advisory committee shall make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding--
``(i) whether a covered part D drug is found to provide a
greater clinical benefit, including fewer safety concerns or
less risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same
class that is currently included in the formulary and should
be included in the formulary;
``(ii) whether a covered part D drug is found to provide
less clinical benefit, including greater safety concerns or a
greater risk of side-effects, than another drug in the same
class that is currently included in the formulary and should
not be included in the formulary; and
``(iii) whether a covered part D drug has the same or
similar clinical benefit to a drug in the same class that is
currently included in the formulary and whether the drug
should be included in the formulary.
``(F) Limitations on review of manufacturer petitions.--The
advisory committee shall not review a petition of a drug
manufacturer under subparagraph (A)(ii) with respect to a
covered part D drug unless the petition is accompanied by the
following:
``(i) Raw data from clinical trials on the safety and
effectiveness of the drug.
``(ii) Any data from clinical trials conducted using active
controls on the drug or drugs that are the current standard
of care.
``(iii) Any available data on comparative effectiveness of
the drug.
``(iv) Any other information the Secretary requires for the
advisory committee to complete its review.
``(G) Response to recommendations.--The Secretary shall
review the recommendations of the advisory committee and if
the Secretary accepts such recommendations the Secretary
shall modify the formulary established under this subsection
accordingly. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
Secretary from adding to the formulary a drug for which the
Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or
the advisory committee has not made a recommendation.
``(H) Notice of changes.--The Secretary shall provide
timely notice to beneficiaries and health professionals about
changes to the formulary or formulary incentives.
``(f) Informing Beneficiaries.--The Secretary shall take
steps to inform beneficiaries about the availability of a
Medicare operated drug plan or plans including providing
information in the annual handbook
[[Page S1563]]
distributed to all beneficiaries and adding information to
the official public Medicare website related to prescription
drug coverage available through this part.
``(g) Application of All Other Requirements for
Prescription Drug Plans.--Except as specifically provided in
this section, any Medicare operated drug plan shall meet the
same requirements as apply to any other prescription drug
plan, including the requirements of section 1860D-4(b)(1)
relating to assuring pharmacy access.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1860D-3(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) Availability of the medicare operated prescription
drug plan.--A Medicare operated prescription drug plan (as
defined in section 1860D-11A(c)) shall be offered nationally
in accordance with section 1860D-11A.''.
(2)(A) Section 1860D-3 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-103) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Provisions Only Applicable in 2006 Through 2011.--The
provisions of this section shall only apply with respect to
2006 through 2011.''.
(B) Section 1860D-11(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
111(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(8) No authority for fallback plans after 2011.--A
fallback prescription drug plan shall not be available after
December 31, 2011.''.
(3) Section 1860D-13(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-113(c)(3)) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by inserting ``and medicare operated
prescription drug plans'' after ``Fallback plans''; and
(B) by inserting ``or a Medicare operated prescription drug
plan'' after ``a fallback prescription drug plan''.
(4) Section 1860D-16(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-116(b)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) payments for expenses incurred with respect to the
operation of Medicare operated prescription drug plans under
section 1860D-11A.''.
(5) Section 1860D-41(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-151(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(19) Medicare operated prescription drug plan.--The term
`Medicare operated prescription drug plan' has the meaning
given such term in section 1860D-11A(c).''.
SEC. 3. IMPROVED APPEALS PROCESS UNDER THE MEDICARE OPERATED
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN.
Section 1860D-4(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1305w-104(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) Appeals process for medicare operated prescription
drug plan.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a well-
defined process for appeals for denials of benefits under
this part under the Medicare operated prescription drug plan.
Such process shall be efficient, impose minimal
administrative burdens, and ensure the timely procurement of
non-formulary drugs or exemption from formulary incentives
when medically necessary. Medical necessity shall be based on
professional medical judgment, the medical condition of the
beneficiary, and other medical evidence. Such appeals process
shall include--
``(i) an initial review and determination made by the
Secretary; and
``(ii) for appeals denied during the initial review and
determination, the option of an external review and
determination by an independent entity selected by the
Secretary.
``(B) Consultation in development of process.--In
developing the appeals process under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall consult with consumer and patient groups, as
well as other key stakeholders to ensure the goals described
in subparagraph (A) are achieved.''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Udall of New Mexico):
S. 564. A bill to designate the Valles Caldera National Preserve as a
unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation
that would transfer administrative jurisdiction of the Valles Caldera
National Preserve from the Valles Caldera Trust to the National Park
Service. I am pleased that my colleague from New Mexico, Tom Udall, is
again a cosponsor of this bill.
For those not familiar with this area, the Valles Caldera in Northern
New Mexico is one of only three supervolcanoes in the United States,
the other two being Yellowstone, WY, and Long Valley, CA. Spanning more
than 100,000 acres, the caldera contains lush and expansive grassland
valleys, ponderosa pines in the foothills and mixed conifer forests in
the higher elevations of the volcanic domes and peaks. Numerous
cultural and archaeological sites are scattered throughout the
landscape that provides quality habitat to elk, trout, golden and bald
eagles, and myriad other species. In 1975, the Valles Caldera received
formal recognition as an outstanding and nationally significant
geologic resource when it was designated a National Natural Landmark.
More recently in 2000, the Valles Caldera Preservation Act authorized
the Federal Government to acquire the property and established the
Valles Caldera Trust--an independent government corporation led by a
board of trustees appointed by the President whose mission is to
provide for public access and protection of the Preserve's natural and
cultural resources. The Trust is also directed to manage the Preserve
in a manner that would achieve financial self-sustainability after
fifteen years.
While the individual board members have done their best to fulfill
the original legislative directives, time has shown in my opinion that
this management framework is not the best suited for the long-term
management of the Preserve. These issues have been laid out at length
in two GAO reports, during the hearing we held on this legislation in
the 111th Congress, and in previous statements I have made on the
subject.
In weighing the various alternatives, the conclusion was reached that
management by the National Park Service--an agency with a mission of
protecting natural, historic, and cultural resources while also
providing for public enjoyment of those resources--is more appropriate
for the long-term future of the Valles Caldera. In my view, it would
also best serve the public's desire for increased public access,
balanced with the need to protect and interpret the Preserve's unique
cultural and natural resources.
Senator Udall and I first introduced this legislation during the
111th Congress, during which time the bill received a hearing in the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and was reported out
favorably by that Committee. The reported legislation, which is what we
are introducing today, incorporated the many comments we received
during the hearing process. This includes improvements to the
provisions on hunting and fishing and cattle grazing as well as changes
made based on recommendations by tribal governments. Other stakeholder
comments, including those from the friends group, Los Amigos de Valles
Caldera, led to modifications that will ensure the ecological
restoration of the Preserve remains a priority under Park Service
management. I also appreciated the valuable comments we received from
the staff at the Valles Caldera Trust who remain steadfast in their
commitment to the highest management standards at the Preserve.
Beyond these changes, however, the original framework and intent of
the legislation remains the same. The existing character of the
Preserve would be maintained and protections for tribal cultural and
religious sites would be strengthened. The Park Service would manage
the Preserve to protect and preserve its natural and cultural
resources, while increasing public access and continuing to permit
hunting and fishing and grazing. The National Park Service would also
establish a science and education program similar to the highly
successful program created by the Trust.
While the full Senate was unable to take action on this bill during
the last Congress, I remain hopeful that we will find an opportunity
during this one to bring it before the Senate for consideration. Public
support in my State remains very high for the Park Service to manage
this unique resource, and it is my hope that the enactment of this
legislation will allow more Americans as well as future generations to
enjoy this special place.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 564
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Valles Caldera National
Preserve Management Act''.
[[Page S1564]]
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Eligible employee.--The term ``eligible employee''
means a person who was a full-time or part-time employee of
the Trust during the 180-day period immediately preceding the
date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Valles Caldera Fund
established by section 106(h)(2) of the Valles Caldera
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v-4(h)(2)).
(3) Preserve.--The term ``Preserve'' means the Valles
Caldera National Preserve in the State.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New
Mexico.
(6) Trust.--The term ``Trust'' means the Valles Caldera
Trust established by section 106(a) of the Valles Caldera
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v-4(a)).
SEC. 3. VALLES CALDERA NATIONAL PRESERVE.
(a) Designation as Unit of the National Park System.--To
protect, preserve, and restore the fish, wildlife, watershed,
natural, scientific, scenic, geologic, historic, cultural,
archaeological, and recreational values of the area, the
Valles Caldera National Preserve is designated as a unit of
the National Park System.
(b) Management.--
(1) Applicable law.--The Secretary shall administer the
Preserve in accordance with--
(A) this Act; and
(B) the laws generally applicable to units of the National
Park System, including--
(i) the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.); and
(ii) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
(2) Management coordination.--The Secretary may coordinate
the management and operations of the Preserve with the
Bandelier National Monument.
(3) Management plan.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 3 fiscal years after the
date on which funds are made available to implement this
subsection, the Secretary shall prepare a management plan for
the Preserve.
(B) Applicable law.--The management plan shall be prepared
in accordance with--
(i) section 12(b) of Public Law 91-383 (commonly known as
the ``National Park Service General Authorities Act'') (16
U.S.C. 1a-7(b)); and
(ii) any other applicable laws.
(C) Consultation.--The management plan shall be prepared in
consultation with--
(i) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(ii) State and local governments;
(iii) Indian tribes and pueblos, including the Pueblos of
Jemez, Santa Clara, and San Ildefonso; and
(iv) the public.
(c) Acquisition of Land.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire land and
interests in land within the boundaries of the Preserve by--
(A) purchase with donated or appropriated funds;
(B) donation; or
(C) transfer from another Federal agency.
(2) Administration of acquired land.--On acquisition of any
land or interests in land under paragraph (1), the acquired
land or interests in land shall be administered as part of
the Preserve.
(d) Science and Education Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) until the date on which a management plan is completed
in accordance with subsection (b)(3), carry out the science
and education program for the Preserve established by the
Trust; and
(B) beginning on the date on which a management plan is
completed in accordance with subsection (b)(3), establish a
science and education program for the Preserve that--
(i) allows for research and interpretation of the natural,
historic, cultural, geologic and other scientific features of
the Preserve;
(ii) provides for improved methods of ecological
restoration and science-based adaptive management of the
Preserve; and
(iii) promotes outdoor educational experiences in the
Preserve.
(2) Science and education center.--As part of the program
established under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary may
establish a science and education center outside the
boundaries of the Preserve.
(e) Grazing.--The Secretary may allow the grazing of
livestock within the Preserve to continue--
(1) consistent with this Act; and
(2) to the extent the use furthers scientific research or
interpretation of the ranching history of the Preserve.
(f) Fish and Wildlife.--Nothing in this Act affects the
responsibilities of the State with respect to fish and
wildlife in the State, except that the Secretary, in
consultation with the New Mexico Department of Game and
Fish--
(1) shall permit hunting and fishing on land and water
within the Preserve in accordance with applicable Federal and
State laws; and
(2) may designate zones in which, and establish periods
during which, no hunting or fishing shall be permitted for
reasons of public safety, administration, the protection of
wildlife and wildlife habitats, or public use and enjoyment.
(g) Ecological Restoration.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall undertake activities
to improve the health of forest, grassland, and riparian
areas within the Preserve, including any activities carried
out in accordance with title IV of the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.).
(2) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements with adjacent pueblos to coordinate
activities carried out under paragraph (1) on the Preserve
and adjacent pueblo land.
(h) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, all land
and interests in land within the boundaries of the Preserve
are withdrawn from--
(1) entry, disposal, or appropriation under the public land
laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing laws, geothermal
leasing laws, and mineral materials laws.
(i) Volcanic Domes and Other Peaks.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), for
the purposes of preserving the natural, cultural, religious,
archaeological, and historic resources of the volcanic domes
and other peaks in the Preserve described in paragraph (2)
within the area of the domes and peaks above 9,600 feet in
elevation or 250 feet below the top of the dome, whichever is
lower--
(A) no roads or buildings shall be constructed; and
(B) no motorized access shall be allowed.
(2) Description of volcanic domes.--The volcanic domes and
other peaks referred to in paragraph (1) are--
(A) Redondo Peak;
(B) Redondito;
(C) South Mountain;
(D) San Antonio Mountain;
(E) Cerro Seco;
(F) Cerro San Luis;
(G) Cerros Santa Rosa;
(H) Cerros del Abrigo;
(I) Cerro del Medio;
(J) Rabbit Mountain;
(K) Cerro Grande;
(L) Cerro Toledo;
(M) Indian Point;
(N) Sierra de los Valles; and
(O) Cerros de los Posos.
(3) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in cases in
which construction or motorized access is necessary for
administrative purposes (including ecological restoration
activities or measures required in emergencies to protect the
health and safety of persons in the area).
(j) Traditional Cultural and Religious Sites.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with Indian
tribes and pueblos, shall ensure the protection of
traditional cultural and religious sites in the Preserve.
(2) Access.--The Secretary, in accordance with Public Law
95-341 (commonly known as the ``American Indian Religious
Freedom Act'') (42 U.S.C. 1996)--
(A) shall provide access to the sites described in
paragraph (1) by members of Indian tribes or pueblos for
traditional cultural and customary uses; and
(B) may, on request of an Indian tribe or pueblo,
temporarily close to general public use 1 or more specific
areas of the Preserve to protect traditional cultural and
customary uses in the area by members of the Indian tribe or
pueblo.
(3) Prohibition on motorized access.--The Secretary shall
maintain prohibitions on the use of motorized or mechanized
travel on Preserve land located adjacent to the Santa Clara
Indian Reservation, to the extent the prohibition was in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(k) Caldera Rim Trail.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, affected Indian tribes and
pueblos, and the public, shall study the feasibility of
establishing a hiking trail along the rim of the Valles
Caldera on--
(A) land within the Preserve; and
(B) National Forest System land that is adjacent to the
Preserve.
(2) Agreements.--On the request of an affected Indian tribe
or pueblo, the Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture
shall seek to enter into an agreement with the Indian tribe
or pueblo with respect to the Caldera Rim Trail that provides
for the protection of--
(A) cultural and religious sites in the vicinity of the
trail; and
(B) the privacy of adjacent pueblo land.
(l) Valid Existing Rights.--Nothing in this Act affects
valid existing rights.
SEC. 4. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION.
(a) In General.--Administrative jurisdiction over the
Preserve is transferred from the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Trust to the Secretary, to be administered as a unit of
the National Park System, in accordance with section 3.
(b) Exclusion From Santa Fe National Forest.--The
boundaries of the Santa Fe National Forest are modified to
exclude the Preserve.
(c) Interim Management.--
(1) Memorandum of agreement.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the
Trust shall enter into a memorandum of agreement to
facilitate the orderly transfer to the Secretary of the
administration of the Preserve.
(2) Existing management plans.--Notwithstanding the repeal
made by section 5(a), until the date on which the Secretary
[[Page S1565]]
completes a management plan for the Preserve in accordance
with section 3(b)(3), the Secretary may administer the
Preserve in accordance with any management activities or
plans adopted by the Trust under the Valles Caldera
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v et seq.), to the extent the
activities or plans are consistent with section 3(b)(1).
(3) Public use.--The Preserve shall remain open to public
use during the interim management period, subject to such
terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
(d) Valles Caldera Trust.--
(1) Termination.--The Trust shall terminate 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act unless the Secretary
determines that the termination date should be extended to
facilitate the transitional management of the Preserve.
(2) Assets and liabilities.--
(A) Assets.--On termination of the Trust--
(i) all assets of the Trust shall be transferred to the
Secretary; and
(ii) any amounts appropriated for the Trust shall remain
available to the Secretary for the administration of the
Preserve.
(B) Assumption of obligations.--
(i) In general.--On termination of the Trust, the Secretary
shall assume all contracts, obligations, and other
liabilities of the Trust.
(ii) New liabilities.--
(I) Budget.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Trust shall
prepare a budget for the interim management of the Preserve.
(II) Written concurrence required.--The Trust shall not
incur any new liabilities not authorized in the budget
prepared under subclause (I) without the written concurrence
of the Secretary.
(3) Personnel.--
(A) Hiring.--The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture
may hire employees of the Trust on a noncompetitive basis for
comparable positions at the Preserve or other areas or
offices under the jurisdiction of the Secretary or the
Secretary of Agriculture.
(B) Salary.--Any employees hired from the Trust under
subparagraph (A) shall be subject to the provisions of
chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53, title 5, United
States Code, relating to classification and General Schedule
pay rates.
(C) Interim retention of eligible employees.--For a period
of not less than 180 days beginning on the date of enactment
of this Act, all eligible employees of the Trust shall be--
(i) retained in the employment of the Trust;
(ii) considered to be placed on detail to the Secretary;
and
(iii) subject to the direction of the Secretary.
(D) Termination for cause.--Nothing in this paragraph
precludes the termination of employment of an eligible
employee for cause during the period described in
subparagraph (C).
(4) Records.--The Secretary shall have access to all
records of the Trust pertaining to the management of the
Preserve.
(5) Valles caldera fund.--
(A) In general.--Effective on the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall assume the powers of the Trust over
the Fund.
(B) Availability and use.--Any amounts in the Fund as of
the date of enactment of this Act shall be available to the
Secretary for use, without further appropriation, for the
management of the Preserve.
SEC. 5. REPEAL OF VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION ACT.
(a) Repeal.--On the termination of the Trust, the Valles
Caldera Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v et seq.) is
repealed.
(b) Effect of Repeal.--Notwithstanding the repeal made by
subsection (a)--
(1) the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to
acquire mineral interests under section 104(e) of the Valles
Caldera Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v-2(e)) is transferred
to the Secretary and any proceeding for the condemnation of,
or payment of compensation for, an outstanding mineral
interest pursuant to the transferred authority shall
continue;
(2) the provisions in section 104(g) of the Valles Caldera
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v-2(g)) relating to the Pueblo
of Santa Clara shall remain in effect; and
(3) the Fund shall not be terminated until all amounts in
the Fund have been expended by the Secretary.
(c) Boundaries.--The repeal of the Valles Caldera
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 698v et seq.) shall not affect
the boundaries as of the date of enactment of this Act
(including maps and legal descriptions) of--
(1) the Preserve;
(2) the Santa Fe National Forest (other than the
modification made by section 4(b));
(3) Bandelier National Monument; and
(4) any land conveyed to the Pueblo of Santa Clara.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman
in reintroducing a bill to designate the Valles Caldera National
Preserve in New Mexico as a unit of the National Park System. The
Valles Caldera is one of the largest volcanic calderas in the world.
The vast grass-filled valleys, forested hillsides, and numerous
volcanic peaks make the area a treasure to New Mexico, and a landscape
of national significance millions of years in the making. It is
appropriate that an area of such value be protected in perpetuity as a
unit of the National Park Service.
Around 1.5 million years ago a series of explosive rhyolitic
eruptions created the massive caldera and dropped hundreds of meters of
volcanic ash for miles. This volcanic activity gave the Pajarito
Plateau its distinctive cliffs of pink and white tuff overlaying the
black basalts of the Rio Grande Rift.
In the millennia following the caldera's explosive creation, erosion
and weathering carved vibrant canyons and left pinion-topped mesas
stretching like fingers away from the massive crater. In time, magma
and water drained from the great valley, and a diversity of plants and
wildlife took their place. With such resources and natural beauty, it
is no wonder that for millennia people have also been an integral part
of the Valles Caldera.
For the Pueblo Tribes of northern New Mexico, the Valles Caldera has
been a part of life from time immemorial. The continued cultural and
religious significance of the area must and will be respected and
protected as the preserve moves into the management of the National
Park Service.
Private ownership of the Caldera began with Spanish settlers who
introduced livestock to the grassy valleys that continue to fatten elk
and cattle in the summer months. After a series of owners managed the
caldera, the Federal Government finally purchased the area in 2000
through the Valles Caldera Preservation Act, which I was proud to help
shepherd through Congress with Senator Bingaman and then-Senator
Domenici. The subsequent creation of the Valles Caldera National
Preserve included the establishment of a board of directors and the
Valles Caldera Trust to manage the area, and mandates for stakeholder
involvement and eventual financial self-sufficiency of the Trust.
I applaud the decade of work that both the Board of Trustees and the
Valles Caldera Trust have dedicated to the preserve. The exceptional
dedication of Caldera employees has led to the creation of a robust
science and research program, to the development of incredible
educational opportunities for visiting schools and universities, to a
restoration of natural resources, and to an expansion of cutting-edge
scientific research.
Since 1939, the National Park Service has deemed the area of
significant national value because of its unique and unaltered geology,
and its singular setting, which are conducive to public recreation,
reflection, education, and research. By utilizing the resources and
skills within the National Park Service, I believe the Valles Caldera
National Preserve will continue to prosper as a natural wonder full of
significant geology, ecology, history, and culture.
The bill that we introduce today reflects the comments and proposals
that emerged through a successful committee process on a similar bill
that Senator Bingaman and I introduced last year. In September 2010,
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported the bill out
favorably, and it is my hope that the Committee will act quickly to
move this reintroduced bill to the Senate floor for a vote. I look
forward to working with Senator Bingaman and all of the stakeholders
who care about the future of this preserve to complete our efforts to
establish Park Service management of the preserve.
____________________