[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.
____________________