[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 152 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6463-S6469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. McCain, and Mr. 
        Hoeven):
  S. 1684. A bill to amend the Indian Tribal Energy Development and 
Self-Determination Act of 2005, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian 
Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 
2011. For far too long, bureaucratic red tape has prevented Indian 
tribes from pursuing economic development opportunities on tribal trust 
lands, including energy development. For years, Indian tribes have 
expressed concerns about how Federal laws and regulations governing the 
management of trust resources, including energy resources, create 
significant delays and uncertainty in development proposals.
  This bill represents an effort to deal with some of those concerns, 
and for the Record I would like to highlight some of its provisions. 
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included an Indian Energy title--Title 
V--that, in significant part, attempts to deal with these delays and 
uncertainties that are inherent in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' energy 
leasing process, by providing Indian tribes with an alternative way to 
develop their energy resources. However, more than 6 years after the 
enactment of that act, it appears that no tribe has yet availed itself 
of the new energy development process authorized in the 2005 Act.
  This bill includes a number of amendments to the alternative process 
established back in 2005, all of which are intended to facilitate the 
use of that section--to make the process easier for Indian tribes to 
follow and more predictable--be clearing away some of the red tape and 
other impediments.
  Another amendment to this process would provide the Indian tribes 
with some funding to implement the processes authorized under the 2005 
Energy Policy Act, in a way that should not increase the cost of the 
program. What this amendment would do is require the Secretary to 
provide funding to the tribe for its energy development activities in 
an amount equal any savings that the United States might realize as a 
result of the Indian tribe pursing this process, since the Indian tribe 
would be performing many functions itself rather than the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. The bill requires the Secretary to identify the savings 
to the United States and make that amount available to the Indian tribe 
in a separate funding agreement.
  The ultimate goal of these amendments is to facilitate economic 
development, provide Indian people with an opportunity to make a good 
living, and give the tribes greater control over the management and 
development of their own trust resources.
  There are other energy-related issues addressed in this bill as well. 
There is an amendment to section 201 of the Federal Power Act that 
would put Indian tribes on a similar footing with States and 
municipalities for preferences when preliminary permits or original 
licenses, where no preliminary permit has been issued, for 
hydroelectric projects. However, this provision does not affect any 
preliminary permit or original license issued before the bill's 
enactment date or any application for an original license where no 
preliminary permit has been issued that was complete before the date of 
enactment of the bill.
  The bill would also authorize a ``biomass demonstration project'' for 
biomass energy production from Indian forest lands, rangelands and 
other Federal lands in accordance with program requirements developed 
by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture after consultation with 
Indian tribes. This amendment would promote the development of tribal 
biomass projects by providing them with more reliable and potentially 
long-term supplies of woody biomass materials.
  There are many other provisions of the Indian Tribal Energy 
Development and Self-Determination Act of 2011, but the foregoing items 
are among the more important. Before I conclude, I would like to thank 
Senator Akaka, the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, for his 
leadership on this issue and for agreeing to cosponsor this bill with 
me as well as the other Senators who have agreed to join as cosponsors.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to help us expand economic 
opportunity on tribal trust lands by moving this act expeditiously.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Indian 
Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 
2011. I am proud to co-sponsor this bill introduced by my friend, 
colleague, and Vice Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, 
Senator John Barrasso. I applaud his leadership and am proud to call 
him my full partner in our work on behalf of the Native peoples of the 
United States. Introduction of the Indian Tribal Energy Development and 
Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2011 is an important first step. I 
look forward to hearings on this measure and working with all of my 
colleagues to increase the ability of Native communities to develop 
energy resources on their lands and enhance self-determination.
  Indian lands hold great potential for traditional and renewable 
domestic energy production. Responsible development could help decrease 
our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources and create much 
needed jobs in some of the most impoverished areas of the Nation. 
Today, Indian reservations make up approximately 5 percent of the 
United States land base, and it is estimated that those reservations 
contain about 10 percent of the country's energy resources. A number of 
Indian tribes are already working in the areas of traditional and 
renewable energy production, energy transmission, and energy planning. 
Yet, successfully tapping into the vast energy reserves in our Nation's 
Indian communities remains a difficult and complex task.
  It remains challenging for Indian tribes to develop adequate 
information about their energy resources, to obtain interconnection to 
the electric transmission grid, and to partner with private entities to 
engage in energy projects. Congress recognized the potential of tribes 
to develop energy sources on their lands by enacting tribal provisions 
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. However, many of the programs and 
policies authorized by Title V of the act intended to benefit tribes 
have not been implemented or have only been partially implemented.
  The Committee on Indian Affairs has held a listening session, and we 
have solicited comments from stakeholders across the spectrum on the 
issue. Tribes have made it clear they wish to chart their own economic 
destinies, but that in order to do so modifications are needed to the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation introduced today will 
address tribal concerns as well as private sector concerns and will 
help unlock the huge potential of Indian tribal energy development to 
create jobs, promote tribal self-determination, and decrease our 
dependence on foreign energy sources.
  This bill will set clear deadlines for Secretarial approval and 
streamline administrative processes related to tribal energy 
development which will help tribes and the United States ``win the 
future'' by enabling development of renewable energy sources from 
tribal lands.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to stand with me and Senator 
Barrasso in support of this legislative initiative.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI:
  S. 1688. A bill to amend the provisions of title 5, United States 
Code, relating to the methodology for calculating the amount of any 
Postal surplus or supplemental liability under the Civil Service 
Retirement System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Save Our Postal 
Worker Jobs Act.
  Even with advances in technology, America relies on the Postal 
Service

[[Page S6464]]

for everything from notes to family back home, birthday cards, 
medicine, tax returns and absentee voting. The Postal Service binds our 
nation together through communication. But the Postal Service is facing 
a financial crisis and it needs Congress to help.
  The Save Our Postal Worker Jobs Act is simple. It doesn't restructure 
the Postal Service, lay off workers, or close Post Offices. It simply 
gives the Postal Service the authority it needs to take its own money--
not taxpayer money--that it overpaid into its employee pension funds to 
use to help pay its obligations.
  This bill is a jobs bill. Many of the plans that have been introduced 
to keep the U.S. Postal Service financially solvent include provisions 
to lay off thousands of workers, cut promised benefits, and undermine 
collective bargaining rights. The Postal Service has talked about 
reducing its workforce by more than 200,000.
  Our postal service employees are on the front lines every day, 
working hard for America. I want them to know that I am on their side, 
and I will not let them be scapegoated for financial problems at the 
Postal Service. Through the dedication and diligence of our postal 
workers, the mail is delivered across the country through rain or sleet 
or snow. It is their work that conveys messages to family, brings 
medicine to our veterans and seniors, and helps our constituents who 
are away from home on election day have their voices heard.
  This bill is about preserving the local Post Office--an important 
part of a neighborhood's identity and a piece of the fabric of our 
communities. This bill is about preserving Postal Service delivery--
which is so important for rural areas like Western Maryland and the 
Eastern Shore. Each region has unique geography that can complicate or 
delay mail delivery. And reductions to the Postal Service could 
seriously harm those residents.
  This bill alone will not solve all of the Postal Service's problems. 
The process of reforming the Postal Service and bringing it into the 
21st Century may mean that some workers will be let go, some Post 
Offices may close, and some changes may be made to delivery.
  Ultimately, this bill is about allowing those decisions to be 
thoughtfully considered, with time for the Americans who rely on the 
Postal Service to be heard. It's about avoiding making rash decisions 
with a crisis hanging over our heads.
  It is about saving our postal workers' jobs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lee, and Mr. 
        Barrasso):
  S. 1690. A bill to preserve the multiple use land management policy 
in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues, Senator Kyl, Senator Hatch, Senator Lee and Senator 
Barrasso in introducing legislation to prevent the Secretary of the 
Interior from executing his plan to ban mining on 1 million acres of 
Federal land in northern Arizona. A companion bill has been introduced 
by Congressman Trent Franks in the House. The purpose behind this 
legislation is best outlined in a recent letter that I along with 
several members of the Senate and House transmitted to the Secretary of 
the Interior today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 October 12, 2011.
     Hon. Ken Salazar,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Salazar: We are writing to urge you to 
     reconsider moving forward with a proposed 20-year withdrawal 
     of approximately 1 million acres of federal mineral estate in 
     northern Arizona. We predict such a decision, if finalized, 
     would kill hundreds of potential jobs in our states and erode 
     the trust needed for diverse stakeholders to reach agreement 
     on how to protect and manage public lands in the future.
       Grand Canyon National Park is an Arizona icon and a natural 
     wonder that attracts visitors from around the world. The 
     Colorado River that flows through the park is the lifeblood 
     of the West, providing drinking water for millions in seven 
     states. We share your desire to protect Grand Canyon National 
     Park and the region's water supplies from adverse 
     environmental effects that may be associated with hardrock 
     mineral exploration and development. We disagree that the 
     proposed withdrawal is necessary to achieve that objective. 
     In our view, the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
     on the proposed withdrawal actually demonstrates that uranium 
     mineral development would pose little, if any, threat to the 
     park or water quality in the region. Thus, we are concerned 
     that this proposed withdrawal is more about social agendas 
     and political pressure than about the best available science.
       The aspiration on the part of the environmental community 
     to ban all mining activity in the Grand Canyon region is not 
     new. It existed during the last uranium rebound of the late 
     1970s and early 1980s. The difference is that, back then, the 
     environmental community put their aspirations aside to 
     constructively work with the mining and livestock industries 
     and Congress to reach an historic agreement on wilderness 
     designations and multiple use land policy--an agreement that 
     ultimately became Title III of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 
     1984 (P.L. 98-406). The Act designated over 1.1 million acres 
     of wilderness on the Arizona Strip while, at the same time, 
     releasing another 540,000 acres of federal land for multiple-
     use development; how that development would be conducted was 
     left to the land management planning process. The Act is 
     rightfully held up as the gold standard of stakeholder 
     collaboration and bipartisan compromise. Until now, it has 
     allowed sustainable uranium mining to co-exist with the 
     protection of some of our most treasured natural resources. 
     If the decision is made to move forward with the proposed 
     withdrawal, you will be casting aside that historic 
     compromise and ignoring the land management plans developed 
     through the land management planning process that identify 
     the bulk of the proposed withdrawal area as open to uranium 
     mineral development.

     The Legislative History of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984

       It is important that you review and fully consider the 
     legislative history of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 
     before making a final decision regarding the proposed 
     withdrawal. At that time, former House Interior Committee 
     chairman, the late Rep. Morris Udall, led the Arizona 
     congressional delegation (including then-Rep. John McCain) in 
     crafting the legislation. The legislative history strongly 
     substantiates that there was a compromise regarding 
     wilderness protection and continued uranium exploration and 
     development on the Arizona Strip. That compromise was 
     originally embodied in a free-standing bill, the Arizona 
     Strip Wilderness Act of 1983 (H.R. 3562). The Arizona Strip 
     Wilderness Act of 1983 was incorporated into the Arizona 
     Wilderness Act of 1984 at Title III. A review of the House 
     committee report (H.Rpt. 98-643, Part 1, pages 34-35) 
     accompanying the bill demonstrates the clear recognition by 
     Congress that the lands not designated as wilderness had 
     significant uranium mineral potential, and that the land-
     management planning process would govern that future 
     development. It states:
       There is also a great desire on the part of the Bureau of 
     Land Management and all the interest groups concerned to lay 
     the wilderness issue to rest. This is particularly true for 
     those companies engaged in uranium exploration and mining, as 
     the current wilderness status of large acreages in the 
     Arizona Strip constitutes an impediment to rational and 
     coordinated exploration and development. Likewise, 
     environmental groups feel that uranium activities should be 
     excluded from certain key areas and that immediate wilderness 
     designation for such areas is far preferable to relying on 
     interim wilderness study protection. To this end, a broad 
     coalition of groups and individuals sat down during the early 
     months of 1983 and worked out an agreement that has since 
     received the support from the Administration, the State of 
     Arizona, the local congressman, both senators and virtually 
     every other interest party of which the Committee is aware. 
     Indeed, the Committee's hearings revealed nearly unanimous 
     support for the Arizona Strip proposal. Accordingly, Title 
     III of H.R. 4707 designates the following Arizona Strip lands 
     as wilderness, and releases certain other lands for such non-
     wilderness uses as are determined appropriate though the land 
     management planning process.
       [T]he Committee has not included these lands in wilderness 
     in recognition of their significant mineral (especially 
     uranium) potential. In leaving these lands open for mineral 
     exploration and potential development, the Committee 
     emphasizes that this is an environmentally sensitive area 
     that should be managed by the Bureau of Land Management to 
     minimize adverse impacts on the current remote and wild 
     values. The Committee understands that the type of mining 
     that will take place here is of a low impact, underground 
     type.
       The hearing record on the Arizona Strip Bill is also 
     instructive. It demonstrates that the stakeholders truly 
     believed a ``win win'' had been struck and were willing to 
     testify in support of the compromise. The following excerpts 
     are taken from the testimony offered on October 21, 1983 on 
     the Arizona Strip Wilderness Act of 1983 before the House 
     Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks:

[[Page S6465]]

     Testimony of Michael D. Scott, Regional Southwest Director, 
         The Wilderness Society.
       It [H.R. 3562] is supported by, among others, the mining 
     industry, local government, the livestock industry, and 
     conservationists. This unusual combination of support is not 
     an accident. It represents many months of work at forging a 
     compromise acceptable to the entire range of interests on the 
     Arizona Strip.'' (Page 296)
       At the same time that the Strip emerged as a top 
     conservationist priority, energy companies, most notably 
     Energy Fuels Nuclear (EFN), began to discover significant 
     uranium deposits. As you know, Mr. Chairman, in most cases 
     there are no significant minerals in wilderness or wilderness 
     candidate lands. As unfortunately happens on occasion, some 
     of these significant uranium deposits overlapped with 
     outstanding wildlands in the Strip. Fortunately, EFN, is not 
     a typical hard-rock mining company. Conservationists and EFN 
     decided to discuss those differences. (Page 297)
     Statement of Representative Bob Stump.
       For many months, several divergent groups, who would 
     usually be viewed as adversaries, have worked together to 
     form a consensus on wilderness designation and multiple use 
     for the Arizona Strip. The legislation which you have before 
     you today is the result of those efforts and is proof 
     positive that give and take on the part of all participants 
     can result in a compromise which will address all concerns. 
     (Page 271)
       The key and important factor in this agreement is that it 
     expresses the needs and desires of the ranching, mining, 
     local government, public land managers and environmental 
     communities  . . . an example of business interests and 
     environmental concerns working together. (Page 272)
       Almost 800,000 acres were included in the Bureau of Land 
     Management Wilderness Study Areas in the Arizona Strip. H.R. 
     3562 designates approximately 165,996 of those acres as well 
     as 122,604 acres in the Paiute Primitive Area, Paria 
     Primitive Area and Vermillion Cliffs Natural Area, as 
     wilderness. The remaining 620,000 acres or 79% of the BLM 
     Wilderness Study Areas will be released to multiple use. 
     (Page 272)
     Testimony of Gerald Grandey, Vice President, Energy Fuels 
         Corporation.
       Of what we know today, the Arizona Strip appears to be the 
     only area in the United States that has the potential to 
     produce relatively high grade uranium ore, which even at 
     today's depressed market is capable of competing with foreign 
     sources of the material, such as South Africa, Canada, and 
     Australia. (Page 106)
       The benefits to be had from the passage of the Arizona 
     Strip Wilderness Act of 1983 are clear. The wilderness in 
     question will be decided once and for all ending many years 
     of potential controversy and debate. In the areas released to 
     multiple use, our Company and others with active programs in 
     the Arizona Strip will be able to conduct exploration in a 
     cost effective and responsible manner. (Page 284)
     Testimony of Russ Butcher, Southwest Regional Representative, 
         National Parks Conservation Association.
       It was exactly one year ago that we first met and began 
     talking formally with the top officials of Energy Fuels 
     Nuclear, talking about the company's uranium exploration and 
     mining activities north of the Grand Canyon, and about the 
     relationship of these activities to an array of Federal 
     wilderness study areas. (Page 120)
       The proposed withdrawal is a ``de facto wilderness'' 
     designation; it will unravel decades of responsible resource 
     development on the Arizona Strip in a misguided effort to 
     ``save'' the Grand Canyon from the same form of uranium 
     mining that environmental groups once agreed to. Moving 
     forward with the proposed withdrawal will call into question 
     the Department's interpretation of wilderness-release 
     language in other legislation and its commitment to multiple-
     use policy in the years ahead. If the decision is made to 
     finalize the proposed withdrawal, all future wilderness 
     proposals will assuredly face even greater scrutiny as it 
     will be clear that negotiated agreements, such as those 
     contained in the Arizona Wilderness Act, are neither genuine 
     nor enduring.
       Again, we agree that the Grand Canyon deserves to be 
     protected for the enjoyment of future generations. However, 
     moving forward with the proposed withdrawal flies in the face 
     of the legislative history regarding mineral development and 
     responsible land management planning. We strongly urge you to 
     reconsider the proposed withdrawal.
           Sincerely,
         Signed by: Senator John McCain, Senator Orrin Hatch, 
           Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Mike Lee, Senator John 
           Barrasso, Congressman Trent Franks, Congressman Rob 
           Bishop, Congressman Jeff Flake, Congressman David 
           Schweikert, Congressman Paul Gosar, Congressman Ben 
           Quayle, Congressman Jason Chaffetz.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Crapo, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Risch, Mr. Reid, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Tester, 
        Mr. Blunt, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Heller, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Merkley, 
        Mr. Sanders, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Begich, Mrs. 
        McCaskill, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Franken, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 1692. A bill to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000, to provide full funding for the 
Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I introduced, along with Senator 
Murkowski and 22 other Senators S. 1692, the County Payments 
Reauthorization Act of 2011. The bill would provide dependable funding 
to support public schools, transportation infrastructure, and other 
critical county programs in more than 1,900 counties in 49 States. 
Specifically, it would continue to fund for 5 more years the Payments 
In Lieu of Taxes Program, and it would reauthorize the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The Secure Rural Schools 
Act expired at the end of September.
  Economists have long said that funding for local governments not only 
provides one of the most efficient and immediate ways to create and 
save jobs, it also helps to ensure that essential community services on 
which economic growth depends are maintained. These programs have 
proven that point in recent years. They have been lifelines for 
financially strapped rural counties and the thousands of Americans they 
employ and they contract with. They employ a multitude of public school 
teachers, support countless miles of county road projects, fund 
thousands of collaborative forest and watershed restoration projects, 
and pay for hundreds of community wildfire risk reduction programs in 
all parts of the country.
  I would like to give one example from my home State of New Mexico. 
Many of my colleagues may know that the Wallow fire this summer grew to 
become the largest fire in the history of Arizona. My colleagues may 
not know that its leading edge burned more than 15,000 acres into New 
Mexico, and it threatened the community of Luna in Catron County, New 
Mexico.
  When I visited the town of Luna, the community's firefighters told me 
the wildfire risk reduction projects they had completed using funds 
from the Secure Rural Schools Program helped to save their town. The 
funds from this bill also will fund many projects to help their local 
forests and watersheds and many others around New Mexico to recover 
from the severe fires that burned there this summer.
  Despite the important work these programs support, we recognize that 
funding these programs is not easy, given the financial circumstance in 
which we find ourselves. We worked for months to build this strong 
coalition in the Senate and among the stakeholders in support of these 
programs across the country. In the process there have been an array of 
differing views about the details of how these programs should be 
structured going forward.
  For example, recognizing the difficult financial situation in 
communities around the country and the urgent need to create jobs, some 
would significantly increase funding for these programs. Others, 
recognizing the challenging fiscal situation that the Federal 
Government faces, would sharply reduce funding for these programs. Some 
would shift the emphasis of the Secure Rural Schools Program to 
forestry projects such as those covered by titles II and III of that 
program. Others would shift the emphasis to public schools and to road 
projects.
  But most importantly, there has been broad agreement on the most 
critical issues. First, there is broad agreement that funding for these 
two programs is immensely important. Second, there is broad agreement 
that the only way for us to successfully continue that funding is for 
us to renew the compromise we negotiated in 2008. Congress 
overwhelmingly passed that compromise, it has provided funding for 
these programs for the last 4 years, and our communities have broadly 
supported it.
  The alternative, which seems to have become routine in Congress, is 
to emphasize our differences and destroy the coalition of support that 
will be essential to continue funding of these programs.

[[Page S6466]]

  I greatly appreciate the support and leadership of Senator Murkowski 
and many others. Let me mention all those who have helped with this 
bill and who are cosponsoring this effort: Senator Baucus, Senator 
Crapo, Senator Wyden, Senator Risch, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator 
Cochran, Senator Tester, Senator Blunt, Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Heller, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Boxer, Senator Cantwell, Senator 
Murray, Senator Bennet, Senator Merkley, Senator Sanders, Senator Tim 
Johnson, Senator Begich, Senator McCaskill, Senator Mark Udall, Senator 
Franken, and Senator Levin--all of whom are cosponsoring this important 
legislation.
  I hope the rest of the Senate will join us once again to support the 
continuation of these important programs and enact this legislation.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Senator Bingaman 
for leading the effort to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and 
Community Self-Determination Act.
  Over 100 years ago this Congress passed a law which formed a compact 
with counties, boroughs and parishes in rural America where the 
National Forests are located. That compact stipulated that the Forest 
Service would share 25 percent of its revenues with local governments 
to support roads and schools.
  This agreement was put into law 60 years before the Payment in Lieu 
of Tax law was written to help compensate counties for the loss of 
revenue caused by the inability to tax federal property.
  Over the years, the Forest Service shared billions of dollars with 
the counties and, until 1990, the amount of those payments increased 
almost every year. In fact, the Forest Service sold $1.6 billion worth 
of timber in fiscal year 1990. As a result, counties received more than 
$402 million in 25 percent payments to support schools and roads.
  More importantly, the Forest Service timber sale program in 1990 
generated more than 102,000 direct and indirect jobs in areas that now 
have the highest unemployment rates in the country. Those timber sales 
generated more than $5.3 billion--that is billion with a ``B'' of 
economic activity and $800 million in Federal income taxes. Further, 
revenue from the Forest Service's timber sale program supported many of 
the other Forest Service's multiple-use programs, including recreation, 
wilderness, road building and maintenance, and fire suppression.
  All that changed in 1990 and 1991, when activists used the Endangered 
Species Act to reduce, and in some instances stop, timber harvesting 
across the West. If I could wave a magic wand and legislate reforms to 
the many environmental laws that have been twisted and misconstrued in 
order to block any development of our natural resources, rather than 
ensuring responsible decision making by our Federal land management 
agencies, as Congress intended, I would.
  In the long run, I think that is what is needed, and I am convinced 
that given the economic malaise this country suffers, the American 
public is beginning to understand the wrongheaded direction our Federal 
land management has taken over the last two and a half decades.
  But I don't think I can accomplish that in this Congress, and I am 
compelled to avoid adding any additional pain and suffering to the 
shoulders of the small rural communities that depend on Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act payments. Therefore I am 
joining Senators Bingaman and Wyden and others in cosponsoring 
legislation to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act for another 5-year period.
  Senator Bingaman has fully described the bill, but it reauthorizes 
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act at fiscal 
year 2011 payment levels for 5 more years. We have reduced the annual 
reduction in payments from the 10 percent level in current law down to 
a 5-percent annual reduction. Under this plan, counties, parishes, 
communities and schools will receive up to $364 million in temporary 
assistance each year for the next 5 years.
  I say ``temporary'' because this program was, and is, designed to be 
a short-term bridge to allow counties and communities to transition to 
the new economic reality that our wrongheaded Federal lands policy has 
forced upon them.
  I want everyone to also understand that while having signed on to 
this bill I am also considering a number of other alternative solutions 
that have the promise of generating enough revenue and jobs from 
Federal land activities to make our counties whole. I am willing to go 
as far as turning control of some Federal lands over to counties so 
that they may get some economic benefit from them. But first I will be 
taking a careful look at Representative Hastings's bill to generate 
additional resource management by lifting restrictions and expediting 
the processes needed to offer additional timber sales.
  I want everyone to know that if a legitimate, acceptable, offset to 
pay for the cost of this program is not identified by the time the bill 
is ready to move to the Senate floor, I will have no alternative but to 
remove my name from the bill and will have to work to defeat the bill.
  I would tell my fellow Senators that the folks in the House Resources 
Committee are fundamentally correct. We are going to have to either 
utilize our Federal lands to support our rural communities or we should 
divest the Federal Government of those lands and let the States, or the 
counties, manage those lands. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in the House to find a path forward for this approach in 
this and future Congresses.
  I will close by speaking directly to the counties, parishes, boroughs 
and communities that have now depended on the Secure Rural School 
program for more than a decade--and for some counties in Oregon, 
Washington and Northwest California for more than two decades--the 
Secure Rural Schools Payments are coming to an end. It could be this 
year if enough people do not rally around the bill that Senator 
Bingaman, I, and our other cosponsors have proposed. It could be 2 
years from now if Representative Hastings and other Representatives 
prevail. Or it could be 5 years from now if we find the acceptable 
offsets needed to pay for our legislative proposal. My fervent hope is 
that the program will be replaced by a forest management system that 
actually puts people back to work in the forest, but it's coming to an 
end, and the counties and schools need to prepare for that eventuality.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. 
        Cardin):
  S. 1696. A bill to improve the Public Safety Officers' Benefits 
Program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce 
legislation to improve the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, PSOB. 
This law, enacted in 1976, is a vital safety net for our first 
responders who are permanently disabled in the line of duty, and for 
the families of those who make the ultimate sacrifice while serving 
their fellow citizens.
  This legislation, along with several technical refinements to the 
program, will add certain classes of first responders who, due to gaps 
in the law, have been left without protection. For example, the bill 
contains legislation I introduced in the 111th Congress in response to 
the tragic death of Dale Long, a decorated emergency medical responder 
in Vermont. The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers 
Protection Act would protect Mr. Long's survivors and those who may 
follow and encounter the same limitations under the current law.
  Under current PSOB law, in order to be eligible for benefits, a 
member of an ambulance crew must work for an organization that is 
deemed a unit of State or local government, and thus be deemed a public 
employee. In Dale Long's case, as with rescue crews across the country, 
he worked for a private, non-profit entity that nonetheless served his 
community in a way indistinguishable from an organization with status 
as a unit of government. Based upon this distinction, Dale Long's 
surviving family was ineligible for these benefits. This is unfair, and 
undermines the Federal policy that is in place to support and protect 
these men and women. The bill I introduce today would end this 
disparate treatment.
  The legislation also includes a provision to ensure that a cadet 
officer killed during a dangerous training exercise would be eligible 
for such benefits. The current law's weakness in this

[[Page S6467]]

area was highlighted in a case in Maryland, during which fire cadet 
Racheal Wilson was killed during a training exercise. Senator Mikulski 
and Senator Cardin have been very concerned about this situation, and I 
commend them for advocating for its inclusion in this legislation.
  In the 111th Congress, the Judiciary Committee considered and 
reported the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection 
Act by voice vote. Despite the Committee's work, and the process and 
debate it was afforded within the Committee, the bill was objected to 
when I tried to get Senate consideration. This was very disappointing, 
given the importance of this legislation to first responders around the 
country, and given the fact that the legislation was fully offset.
  This year, I once again introduced the Dale Long Emergency Medical 
Service Providers Protection Act. During the Senate's debate in 
February on the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety 
Improvement Act, I worked closely with Senator Inhofe to propose an 
amendment that included both the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service 
Providers Protection Act and a proposal from Senator Inhofe to support 
those who volunteer their time and expertise as airplane pilots to help 
those in need. Our bipartisan amendment was adopted by voice vote.
  During the course of the subsequent conference negotiations on the 
FAA authorization legislation, I worked closely with Chairman 
Rockefeller and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith to 
ensure that our bipartisan amendment was retained in the conference 
agreement. During the course of these negotiations, Chairman Smith 
proposed to expand the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers 
Protection Act to include other changes to the current PSOB law.
  For example, Chairman Smith proposed a refinement of the Hometown 
Heroes law, a law that I authored and which was enacted in 2003. I 
worked with firefighters, police officers, and first responders to make 
sure that what Chairman Smith had proposed would not only retain the 
spirit and intent of the original Hometown Heroes law, but, most 
importantly, would improve upon it to alleviate some of the 
administrative delays that the families of first responders had 
encountered in the past. This refined proposal is included in the bill.
  The bill I introduce today also includes provisions to lessen the 
length of a currently unwieldy appeals process for claimants, clarify 
the list of eligible survivor beneficiaries, and make those who have 
been catastrophically injured eligible for peer support and counseling 
programs. It also removes artificial distinctions under the Hometown 
Heroes Act to expand the types of injuries that would make a public 
safety officer's survivors eligible for benefits.
  The final version of the legislation to which Chairman Smith and I 
agreed represents a bipartisan compromise on the overall improvement of 
this important program. I appreciate Chairman Smith's willingness to 
work with me in support of this program, and the first responders for 
whom the law is intended to protect. I understand that our agreement 
was to be incorporated in the FAA conference report.
  Unfortunately, the future for a conference agreement on the FAA 
legislation is unclear. Each day that passes is another day that Mr. 
Long's family, and others who would benefit from this legislation, must 
live without the assistance this benefit provides. The Public Safety 
Officers' Benefits Act has been in effect for over 30 years, and has 
brought a measure of security to survivors of fallen first responders. 
In 1990, Congress continued this tradition and acted again to ensure 
that those first responders who have been permanently disabled in the 
line of duty are taken care of. This longstanding policy is reflective 
of Congress' recognition of the importance and necessity of the men and 
women who commit themselves as firefighters, police officers, and 
medical responders.
  It is difficult to imagine what communities across America would be 
like without these essential services. From the firefighters in Vermont 
who race to the scene of a rural fire during a cold winter night, to 
the ambulance crews providing emergency medical services following a 
natural disaster in Oklahoma, our dedicated first responders are all 
connected by their sense of duty and their selflessness in the service 
of their neighbors. In Congress, lawmakers have traditionally acted in 
support of these men and women irrespective of party and we should 
continue that great tradition. I hope the Senate will act quickly to 
pass this important bill.
  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. 1696

       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 ``Public Safety Officers' 
     Benefits Improvements Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN NONPROFIT EMERGENCY MEDICAL 
                   SERVICE PROVIDERS AND CERTAIN TRAINEES; 
                   MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 901(a) (42 U.S.C. 3791(a))--
       (A) in paragraph (26), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (27), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(28) the term `hearing examiner' includes any medical or 
     claims examiner.'';
       (2) in section 1201 (42 U.S.C. 3796)--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``follows:'' and all 
     that follows and inserting the following: ``follows (if the 
     payee indicated is living on the date on which the 
     determination is made)--
       ``(1) if there is no child who survived the public safety 
     officer, to the surviving spouse of the public safety 
     officer;
       ``(2) if there is at least 1 child who survived the public 
     safety officer and a surviving spouse of the public safety 
     officer, 50 percent to the surviving child (or children, in 
     equal shares) and 50 percent to the surviving spouse;
       ``(3) if there is no surviving spouse of the public safety 
     officer, to the surviving child (or children, in equal 
     shares);
       ``(4) if there is no surviving spouse of the public safety 
     officer and no surviving child--
       ``(A) to the surviving individual (or individuals, in 
     shares per the designation, or, otherwise, in equal shares) 
     designated by the public safety officer to receive benefits 
     under this subsection in the most recently executed 
     designation of beneficiary of the public safety officer on 
     file at the time of death with the public safety agency, 
     organization, or unit; or
       ``(B) if there is no individual qualifying under 
     subparagraph (A), to the surviving individual (or 
     individuals, in equal shares) designated by the public safety 
     officer to receive benefits under the most recently executed 
     life insurance policy of the public safety officer on file at 
     the time of death with the public safety agency, 
     organization, or unit;
       ``(5) if there is no individual qualifying under paragraph 
     (1), (2), (3), or (4), to the surviving parent (or parents, 
     in equal shares) of the public safety officer; or
       ``(6) if there is no individual qualifying under paragraph 
     (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), to the surviving individual (or 
     individuals, in equal shares) who would qualify under the 
     definition of the term `child' under section 1204 but for 
     age.'';
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``direct result of a catastrophic'' and 
     inserting ``direct and proximate result of a personal'';
       (ii) by striking ``pay,'' and all that follows through 
     ``the same'' and inserting ``pay the same'';
       (iii) by striking ``in any year'' and inserting ``to the 
     public safety officer (if living on the date on which the 
     determination is made)'';
       (iv) by striking ``in such year, adjusted'' and inserting 
     ``with respect to the date on which the catastrophic injury 
     occurred, as adjusted'';
       (v) by striking ``, to such officer'';
       (vi) by striking ``the total'' and all that follows through 
     ``For'' and inserting ``for''; and
       (vii) by striking ``That these'' and all that follows 
     through the period, and inserting ``That the amount payable 
     under this subsection shall be the amount payable as of the 
     date of catastrophic injury of such public safety officer.'';
       (C) in subsection (f)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, as amended (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 4-622); or'' and inserting a semicolon;
       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) by striking ``. Such beneficiaries shall only receive 
     benefits under such section 8191 that'' and inserting ``, 
     such that beneficiaries shall receive only such benefits 
     under such section 8191 as''; and
       (II) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and

       (iii) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S6468]]

       ``(3) payments under the September 11th Victim Compensation 
     Fund of 2001 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note; Public Law 107-42).'';
       (D) by amending subsection (k) to read as follows:
       ``(k) As determined by the Bureau, a heart attack, stroke, 
     or vascular rupture suffered by a public safety officer shall 
     be presumed to constitute a personal injury within the 
     meaning of subsection (a), sustained in the line of duty by 
     the officer and directly and proximately resulting in death, 
     if--
       ``(1) the public safety officer, while on duty--
       ``(A) engages in a situation involving nonroutine stressful 
     or strenuous physical law enforcement, fire suppression, 
     rescue, hazardous material response, emergency medical 
     services, prison security, disaster relief, or other 
     emergency response activity; or
       ``(B) participates in a training exercise involving 
     nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity;
       ``(2) the heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture 
     commences--
       ``(A) while the officer is engaged or participating as 
     described in paragraph (1);
       ``(B) while the officer remains on that duty after being 
     engaged or participating as described in paragraph (1); or
       ``(C) not later than 24 hours after the officer is engaged 
     or participating as described in paragraph (1); and
       ``(3) the heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture 
     directly and proximately results in the death of the public 
     safety officer,
     unless competent medical evidence establishes that the heart 
     attack, stroke, or vascular rupture was unrelated to the 
     engagement or participation or was directly and proximately 
     caused by something other than the mere presence of 
     cardiovascular-disease risk factors.''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) The public safety agency, organization, or unit 
     responsible for maintaining on file an executed designation 
     of beneficiary or executed life insurance policy for purposes 
     of subsection (a)(4) shall maintain the confidentiality of 
     the designation or policy in the same manner as the agency, 
     organization, or unit maintains personnel or other similar 
     records of the public safety officer.'';
       (3) in section 1202 (42 U.S.C. 3796a)--
       (A) by striking ``death'', each place it appears except the 
     second place it appears, and inserting ``fatal''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or catastrophic 
     injury'' the second place it appears and inserting ``, 
     disability, or injury'';
       (4) in section 1203 (42 U.S.C. 3796a-1)--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``WHO HAVE DIED IN 
     THE LINE OF DUTY'' and inserting ``WHO HAVE SUSTAINED FATAL 
     OR CATASTROPHIC INJURY IN THE LINE OF DUTY''; and
       (B) by striking ``who have died in the line of duty'' and 
     inserting ``who have sustained fatal or catastrophic injury 
     in the line of duty'';
       (5) in section 1204 (42 U.S.C. 3796b)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (9) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (10), respectively;
       (B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(1) `candidate-officer' means an individual who is 
     officially enrolled or admitted, as a cadet or trainee, in an 
     officially recognized, formal program of instruction or 
     training (such as a police or fire academy) that is solely 
     and specifically intended to result, directly or immediately 
     upon completion, in--
       ``(A) commissioning as a law enforcement officer;
       ``(B) conferral of authority to engage in fire suppression 
     (as an officer or employee of a public fire department or as 
     an officially recognized or designated member of a legally 
     organized volunteer fire department); or
       ``(C) the granting of official authorization or license to 
     engage in rescue activity or in the provision of emergency 
     medical services as a member of a rescue squad or ambulance 
     crew that is (or is a part of) the agency or entity 
     sponsoring the enrollment or admission of the individual;'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``consequences of an injury that'' and inserting ``an injury, 
     the direct and proximate consequences of which'';
       (D) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i)--

       (I) by inserting ``or permanently and totally disabled'' 
     after ``deceased''; and
       (II) by striking ``death'' and inserting ``fatal or 
     catastrophic injury''; and

       (ii) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
       (E) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``post-mortem'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``post-injury''; and
       (ii) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B), respectively;
       (F) in paragraph (8), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``public employee member of a rescue squad or ambulance 
     crew;'' and inserting ``employee or volunteer member of a 
     rescue squad or ambulance crew (including a ground or air 
     ambulance service) that--
       ``(i) is a public agency; or
       ``(ii) is (or is a part of) a nonprofit entity serving the 
     public that--

       ``(I) is officially authorized or licensed to engage in 
     rescue activity or to provide emergency medical services; and
       ``(II) is officially designated as a prehospital emergency 
     medical response agency;''; and

       (G) in paragraph (10), as so redesignated--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``as a chaplain, or as 
     a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew;'' and inserting 
     ``or as a chaplain;'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (iii) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew who, as 
     authorized or licensed by law and by the applicable agency or 
     entity (and as designated by such agency or entity), is 
     engaging in rescue activity or in the provision of emergency 
     medical services; or
       ``(E) a candidate-officer who is engaging in an activity or 
     exercise--
       ``(i) that is a formal or required part of the program 
     described in paragraph (1); and
       ``(ii) that poses or is designed to simulate situations 
     that pose significant dangers, threats, or hazards.'';
       (6) in section 1205 (42 U.S.C. 3796c), by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(d) Unless expressly provided otherwise, any reference in 
     this part to any provision of law not in this part shall be 
     understood to constitute a general reference under the 
     doctrine of incorporation by reference, and thus to include 
     any subsequent amendments to the provision.'';
       (7) in each of subsections (a) and (b) of section 1212 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796d-1), sections 1213 and 1214 (42 U.S.C. 3796d-2 
     and 3796d-3), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 1216 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796d-5), by striking ``dependent'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``person'';
       (8) in section 1212 (42 U.S.C. 3796d-1)--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by striking ``Subject'' and all that follows through ``, 
     the'' and inserting ``The''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3), by striking ``reduced by'' and all 
     that follows through ``(B) the amount'' and inserting 
     ``reduced by the amount'';
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Dependent''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``dependent'';
       (9) in section 1213(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 3796d-2(b)(2)), by 
     striking ``dependent's'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``person's'';
       (10) in section 1216 (42 U.S.C. 3796d-5)--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``each dependent'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``a spouse or child''; and
       (B) by striking ``dependents'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``a person''; and
       (11) in section 1217(3)(A) (42 U.S.C. 3796d-6(3)(A)), by 
     striking ``described in'' and all that follows and inserting 
     ``an institution of higher education, as defined in section 
     102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002); 
     and''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 
     402(l)(4)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``section 1204(9)(A)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1204(10)(A)''; and
       (2) by striking ``42 U.S.C. 3796b(9)(A)'' and inserting 
     ``42 U.S.C. 3796b(10)(A)''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; DETERMINATIONS; 
                   APPEALS.

       The matter under the heading ``public safety officers 
     benefits'' under the heading ``Office of Justice Programs'' 
     under title II of division B of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 1912; 
     42 U.S.C. 3796c-2) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``decisions'' and inserting 
     ``determinations'';
       (2) by striking ``(including those, and any related 
     matters, pending)''; and
       (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``:  Provided further, That, on and after the date 
     of enactment of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits 
     Improvements Act of 2011, as to each such statute--
       ``(1) the provisions of section 1001(a)(4) of such title I 
     (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(4)) shall apply;
       ``(2) payment shall be made only upon a determination by 
     the Bureau that the facts legally warrant the payment;
       ``(3) any reference to section 1202 of such title I shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to paragraphs (2) and (3) of such 
     section 1202; and
       ``(4) a certification submitted under any such statute may 
     be accepted by the Bureau as prima facie evidence of the 
     facts asserted in the certification:

       Provided further, That, on and after the date of enactment 
     of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act of 
     2011, no appeal shall bring any final determination of the 
     Bureau before any court for review unless notice of appeal is 
     filed (within the time specified herein and in the manner 
     prescribed for appeal to United States courts of appeals from 
     United States district courts) not later than 90 days after 
     the date on which the Bureau serves notice of the final 
     determination:  Provided further,  That any regulations 
     promulgated by the Bureau under such part (or any such 
     statute) before, on, or after the date of enactment of the 
     Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act of 2011 
     shall apply to any matter pending on, or filed or accruing 
     after, the effective date specified in the regulations, 
     except as the Bureau may indicate otherwise.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     amendments made by this Act shall--
       (1) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) apply to any matter pending, before the Bureau of 
     Justice Assistance or otherwise, on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, or filed or accruing after that date.

[[Page S6469]]

       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) Rescue squads and ambulance crews.--For a member of a 
     rescue squad or ambulance crew (as defined in section 1204(8) 
     of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
     of 1968, as amended by this Act), the amendments made by this 
     Act shall apply to injuries sustained on or after June 1, 
     2009.
       (2) Heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures.--Section 
     1201(k) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968, as amended by this Act, shall apply to 
     heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures sustained on or 
     after December 15, 2003.
       (3) Candidate-officers.--For a candidate-officer (as 
     defined in section 1204(1) of the title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by 
     this Act), the amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
     injuries sustained on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

                          ____________________