Accessing College through Comprehensive Early Outreach and State Partnerships Act

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Mel Martinez as we introduce a package of bills aimed at providing a comprehensive solution to strengthen our Nation's property and casualty insurance market. Without serious reform, the Federal Government will be forced to continue to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to cover the costs of natural disasters in the United States. Worse, without Federal action, property insurance soon will become more expensive and hard to find, preventing some consumers from insuring their homes and businesses.

As we know all too well, the last few years have brought a devastating cycle of natural catastrophes in the United States. In 2004 and 2005, we witnessed a series of powerful hurricanes that caused unthinkable human tragedy and property loss. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone caused over $200 billion in total economic losses, including insured and uninsured losses.

In my own home State of Florida, eight catastrophic storms in fifteen months caused more than $31 billion in insured damages. Now Florida is witnessing skyrocketing insurance rates, insurance companies are canceling hundreds of thousands of policies, and Florida's State catastrophe fund is depleted.

In short, the inability of our private markets to fully handle the fallout from natural disasters has made our Nation's property and casualty insurance marketplace unstable. This market instability repeatedly has forced the Federal Government to absorb billions of dollars in uninsured losses. This is a waste of taxpayer money, especially when we know there are ways to design the system to anticipate and plan for the financial impacts of catastrophes.

As insurance companies struggle to maintain their businesses, costs are passed on to homeowners and small businesses in Florida and in other States. In essence, the people who can least afford it are being forced to bear the disproportionate share of the billions of dollars of losses caused by natural catastrophes.

Many Floridians have seen their insurance bills double in the last few years. As I travel around Florida, I hear repeatedly from my constituents that they may soon be unable to afford property and casualty insurance. That is a frightening proposition for people living in a State where increasingly vicious hurricane seasons are predicted. I am sure we all agree--consumers never should be put in the untenable position of having to choose between purchasing insurance and purchasing other necessities.

While our Nation's property and casualty insurance system is not yet broken, it's clear that Congress needs to act now to shore up the system. Private sector insurance is currently available to spread some catastrophe-related losses throughout the Nation and internationally, but most experts believe that there will be significant insurance and reinsurance shortages. These shortages could result in future dramatic rate increases for consumers and businesses and the unavailability of catastrophe insurance.

Let me be clear: these issues will not just affect Florida or the coastal States. Natural catastrophes can strike anywhere in the country. For example, a major earthquake fault line runs through several of our Midwestern States. We also saw firsthand the devastating effects of a volcano eruption at Mount Saint Helens in Washington State.

In the past few decades, major disasters have been declared in almost every State. As I mentioned earlier, the Federal Government has provided and will continue to provide billions of dollars and resources to pay for these catastrophic losses, at huge costs to all American taxpayers.

Congress has struggled with these issues for decades. Although we have talked about these issues time and time again, nothing much has gotten accomplished. The most notable step Congress did take was to create a National Flood Insurance Program. But Congress needs to do much more. It's time for a comprehensive approach to solving our Nation's property and casualty insurance issues.

These matters are usually within the purview of the States, and I cannot understate the importance of State-based solutions to these insurance issues. Nonetheless, the Federal Government also has a critical interest in ensuring appropriate and fiscally responsible risk management of catastrophes.

For example, mortgages require reliable property insurance, and the unavailability of reliable property insurance would make most real estate transactions impossible. Moreover, the public health, safety, and welfare demand that structures damaged or destroyed in catastrophes be reconstructed as soon as possible.

In order to help protect consumers and small businesses, today I join Senator Martinez to introduce this package of bills as part of a comprehensive approach to fixing our troubled insurance system. Let me summarize each of the bills and tell you how this integrated approach makes good policy sense.

The first piece of legislation Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007. This bill is a companion bill to legislation introduced by Florida Representatives Brown-Waite, Buchanan, and others.

This bill would establish a Fund within the U.S. Department of Treasury, which would sell Federal catastrophe insurance to State catastrophe funds; like the fund I helped to set up in Florida. State catastrophe funds essentially act as reinsurance mechanisms for insurance companies who lack resources to compensate homeowners for their losses.

Under this bill, State catastrophe funds would be eligible to purchase reinsurance from the Federal fund at sound rates. However, a State catastrophe fund would be prohibited from gaining access to the Federal fund until private insurance companies and the State catastrophe fund met their financial obligations.

Why is this good for homeowners? Because this back-up mechanism will improve the solvency and capacity of homeowners' insurance markets, which will reduce the chance that consumers will lose their insurance coverage or be hit by huge premium increases.

Importantly, the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007 also recognizes that part of the problem with our broken property and casualty insurance system lies with outdated building codes and mitigation techniques. Noted insurance experts and consumer groups have been pointing out this problem for many years. So, under the bill, the Secretary of the Treasury would establish an expert commission to assist States in developing mitigation, prevention, recovery, and rebuilding programs that would reduce the types of enormous damage we have seen caused by past hurricanes.

I note that this bill covers not just hurricanes, but catastrophes such as tornados, earthquakes, cyclones, catastrophic winter storms, and volcanic eruptions. These are disasters that can--and do--occur in many different States. Again, every State and every taxpayer is affected by this problem, not just Florida.

This bill has widespread support from a broad range of stakeholders, including ProtectingAmerica.org, a national coalition of first responders, businesses, and emergency managers. This organization is co-chaired by former FEMA director James Lee Witt, one of the most respected names in disaster prevention and preparedness.

The second bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Catastrophic Savings Accounts Act of 2007. This bill proposes changing the Federal tax code to allow homeowners to put money aside-- on a tax-free basis--to grow over time. If and when a catastrophe hits, a homeowner could take the accumulated savings out of the account to cover uninsured losses, deductible expenses, and building upgrades to mitigate damage that could be caused in future disasters. Homeowners could even reduce their insurance premiums because their tax-free savings would allow them to choose higher deductibles.

The benefits of this approach are pretty straightforward and very consumer friendly. Homeowners would be encouraged to plan in advance for future disasters, and they wouldn't be taxed to do it. Moreover, homeowners wouldn't be as dependent on insurance companies to help them out immediately after a disaster. As one expert has noted, why should a consumer continue to give insurance companies thousands of dollars each year when the consumer could deposit the same amount of money annually in a tax-free, interest-bearing savings account controlled by the consumer?

The third bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing today is the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007. Under this bill, insurance companies would be permitted to accumulate tax-deferred catastrophic reserves, much like the way that homeowners would be permitted under the bill I just discussed. Depending on their size, insurance companies could save up to a certain capped amount, which would grow over time.

Our current Federal tax code actually provides a disincentive for insurance companies to accumulate reserve funds for catastrophes. Under the current system, insurance companies can only reserve against losses that have already occurred, instead of future losses. The United States is the only industrialized nation that actually taxes reserves in this way. It's time for reform, so that consumers are better protected.

Make no mistake, though--this bill is not a give-away to the insurance companies. Instead, the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007 would strictly regulate when and how insurance companies could access their reserves, to make sure the money is used only for its intended purposes.

If implemented correctly, this bill could result in approximately $15 billion worth of reserves being saved up by insurance companies, which later could be spent to pay for policyholder claims and to keep insurance policies available and affordable. Consumers could feel more protected knowing that their insurance company would have the money saved to help them out after a major disaster. Moreover, this approach should help make the insurance market more stable and less prone to insurers going bankrupt.

The fourth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the Hurricane and Tornado Mitigation Investment Act of 2007. A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Gus Bilirakis and has eight cosponsors.

We have learned through experience that steps taken to fortify and strengthen homes and businesses can prevent damage in the event of a catastrophe. This bill would allow a tax credit of 25 percent not to exceed $5,000 for the costs of building upgrades to mitigate damage caused by hurricanes or tornados.

Updates and improvements to roofs, exterior doors and garages would be covered under this bill. To ensure that these measures are adequately constructed, a state-certified inspector must examine the home or business. The benefits of this approach are straightforward-- home and business owners would be encouraged to plan in advance for future disasters and take steps to mitigate damage caused by catastrophic events.

The fifth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2007. Last year, a similar bill, introduced by Ginny Brown-Waite passed unanimously in the House of Representatives.

Currently, a small percentage of consumers may be unable to find insurance from a licensed insurer, and may be able to purchase insurance from non-licensed insurers, called nonadmitted or surplus lines insurers. These surplus lines insurers often function as a ``safety valve'' for the insurance market. Florida has more individuals in the surplus lines market than any other State.

Virtually every sector--insurers, producers, consumers--has voiced concern with the inefficient patchwork of different laws and regulations that characterize the surplus lines regulatory system. This bill aims to streamline regulations in the surplus lines marketplace through a mix of national standards with State enforcement and uniformity achieved through both incentives and preemption of certain State laws. This bill would create a more efficient and streamlined regulatory system and promote competition in the nonadmitted marketplace.

The sixth bill that Senator Martinez and I are introducing is the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2007. From the storms of 2004 and 2005 we learned the importance of accurate hurricane tracking and prediction. Accurate prediction provides residents of coastal communities more time to find safe and sound shelter.

The objective of this bill is to enhance and improve knowledge of hurricanes by harnessing the expertise of the Federal Government's science professionals to better understand hurricane prediction, intensity, and mitigation on coastal populations and infrastructure.

Let me emphasize again what we need to accomplish to reform our current insurance system and to effectively plan for catastrophic losses.

We need a comprehensive approach that will make sure the United States is truly prepared for the financial fallout from natural disasters. We need a property and casualty insurance system that is not forced to spread valuable taxpayer dollars after a catastrophe strikes. We need a system that protects consumers and small businesses from losing their insurance policies or being forced to pay exorbitant insurance rates. We need ways to encourage responsible construction and mitigation techniques. And we need a

system that helps insurance companies use their resources in cost- effective ways so that they will not go insolvent after major disasters.

Our American economy depends on a health property and casualty insurance system. By enacting meaningful reforms, we can ensure that our economy remains protected and remains the most resilient economy in the world. I know this complicated process won't be easy for us--but let's roll up our shirtsleeves and get it done.

I request that the text of the Homeowners Protection Act of 2007, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act and the Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that helps the U.S. Forest Service to protect sensitive and precious forest by selling developed land in Leon County, FL, in order to purchase at-risk land in the heart of our national forests.

Specifically, this bill allows for the sale of tract W-1979, which is 114 acres in Tallahassee, the proceeds of which are specifically designated to purchase private inholdings in the Apalachicola National Forest. The Forest Service believes that W-1979 has lost its national forest character and is unmanageable; the land will be sold to Leon County, where it will help the continued advancement of Blueprint 2000, a series of community initiatives to improve Tallahassee and Leon County. By selling this land on the outskirt of the Apalachicola National Forest, the Forest Service can acquire precious land in the heart of the forest that could be lost to development.

This legislation also gives the U.S. Forest Service in Florida the same flexibility to manage lands and capital that many other states have. Previously, whenever National Forest land was sold, the funds could only be used to purchase more land, while many important infrastructure projects went undone. With passage of this bill, proceeds only from the sale of ``non-green'' lands can go towards capitol improvements, such as administrative facilities that help the Forest Service manage the Ocala, Apalachicola, and Osceola National Forests. These non-green lands have already been developed with urban improvements, and no longer align with the goals of the U.S. Forest Service.

Congressman Crenshaw and Boyd have introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. I hope that we can quickly pass these bills and help Leon County and the Forest Service.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Hagel, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, Lincoln, Biden, Vitter, Domenici, Martinez, Salazar, Snowe, Brown, Feinstein, Murray, and Clinton, I am honored to introduce legislation today that we are convinced is necessary to fix a long-standing problem in our military survivors benefits system.

President Lincoln's words are as relevant and moving today as they were during the Civil War: ``as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.''

Our Nation continues to be engaged in a violent struggle against brutal and vicious enemies around the world. Sadly, Americans are lost every day. We must never forget that the families left behind by our courageous men and women in uniform bear the greatest pain. Their survivors face a life forever altered, and a future left unclear. They suffer the greatest cost of the ultimate sacrifice, and the nation that asked for that sacrifice must honor it.

Back in 1972, Congress established the military survivors' benefits plan--

or SBP--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect their income. This benefit plan is a voluntary program purchased by the retiree or issued automatically in the case of servicemembers who die while on active duty. Retired servicemembers pay for this benefit from their retired pay. Upon their death, their spouse or dependent children can receive up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an annuity.

For over five years, I've been talking about the unfair and painful offset between SBP and the Department of Veterans Affairs' Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, or DIC, which is received by the surviving spouse of an active duty or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause. Under current law, even if the surviving spouse of such a servicemember is eligible for SBP, that purchased annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC received. Another inequity in the current system is the delayed effective date for ``paid-up status'' under SBP. We should act to correct these injustices this year.

We have made progress, but even with the important changes made over the last few years, the offset still fails to take care of our military widows and surviving children the way it should. We have considered and adopted increased death gratuity benefits for the survivors of our troops lost in this war, and we have changed the law to enable these survivors to automatically enroll in SBP. However, now we see the pain caused when at the same moment a widow is enrolled in SBP she is hit with the DIC offset.

The SBP offset is no less painful for the survivors of our 100 percent disabled military retirees. SBP is a purchased annuity plan. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, I served as Insurance Commissioner for the State of Florida, and I know of no other purchased annuity program that can then turn around and refuse to pay you the benefits you purchased on the grounds that you are getting a different benefit from somewhere else.

Our Federal civil servants receive both their purchased survivor income protection annuity and any disability compensation for which they may be entitled--without offset. Why on earth would we treat our 100 percent disabled military retirees any differently, especially after they have given the best years of their lives and their health in service to the Nation?

Let me be clear about this: survivors of servicemembers are entitled in law to automatic enrollment in SBP; 100 percent disabled military retirees purchase SBP. Survivors stand to lose most or even all of the benefits under SBP only because they are also entitled to DIC.

This legislation also accelerates an improvement we made earlier to the SBP program. We have already agreed that military retirees who have reached the age of 70 and paid their SBP premiums for thirty years should stop paying a premium, but we delayed the effective date for this relief until 2008. We should not delay their relief any further.

The United States owes its very existence to generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have sacrificed throughout our history to keep us free. The sacrifices of today are no less important to American liberty or tragic when a life is lost in the defense of liberty everywhere.

We owe them and their surviving family members a great debt.

Unfortunately, it is too often that we fall short on this care. We must meet this obligation with the same sense of honor as was the service they and their families have rendered.

We will continue to work to do right by those who have given this Nation their all, and especially for the loved ones they may leave to our care.

I appreciate the co-sponsorship of my colleagues--Senators Hagel, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, Lincoln, Biden, Vitter, Domenici, Martinez, Salazar, Snowe, Brown, Feinstein, Murray, and Clinton--and look forward to working with my colleagues in the days ahead.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is always exciting when we get down to the end of a bill, particularly a bill where there has been good bipartisan participation and achievement, and this is one of those. This reauthorization bill we have been considering was reported out of the HELP Committee by a vote of 20 to nothing. It is the result of 3 years of bipartisan negotiations, and we can point to ideas in the bill in which both the Republican and Democratic members of the committee and people outside the committee have participated, proposed, and have wound up in the bill. In the end, it is a product with strong bipartisan support.

I would mention it is not going to be a perfect bill. I would be willing to say that about any bill we pass out of here, it is always a work in progress until it finally gets signed by the President. Quite often when they get signed by the President, they are not perfect bills either, but they are a perfect compromise when they get signed. That means both sides give a little bit, and we concentrate on those areas where there can be agreement. There are a lot of things both sides would like to have in this bill, but they are divisive rather than inclusive, and we have left out those divisive things, for the most part.

In conference committee, we will take care of some of the other things that are slightly divisive to make them more inclusive so the final bill will help as many students as possible. When I say ``students,'' I am not just talking about college students. One of the things I hear back in Wyoming is: What about the kids who want to go to tech school? We include that sort of thing in here too. That is a program where they can get a certification that is recognized throughout the United States.

My wife was at the National Apprenticeship conference. It was the 75th anniversary of certification for apprenticeships and the theme song there was done by a friend of mine from Alaska who is the balladeer of Alaska. I am sure many of you have heard this song. It is: ``I am an Educated Man.'' It talks about a person who has a little bit of trouble with the book-learning stuff, but if you give him a problem he can solve with his hands, he is an educated man. There are still a lot of jobs out there--and there always will be a lot of jobs out there--for which you have to have hands-on work. We cannot exclude those people from the education system. They are absolutely essential to our lives. This bill does some things for the ones who want to go to tech school too.

Senator Warner, in a speech the other day mentioned, when he first went into the military, about a third of the people whom he went through basic training with couldn't read or write. When they were assigned to a ship, there were jobs on those ships those people could do without being able to read or write. Today, the battleships are bigger and they are much more technical. It is a whole different level of education that has to be done for the people who run those battleships and do the jobs that are needed on the battleships.

That is what has happened with jobs throughout this country. Jobs change. It is very important that people who are in high school now realize that when they enter the job market, they are probably going to have 14 different careers--not 14 different jobs, not 14 different employers--14 different careers. Of those 14, 10 have not even been invented yet.

It is very important to get a good education so people throughout their lives can transition to the new jobs that are happening--because that will be happening. Those who do not get the knowledge and the capability to make the transfer to new careers will be left behind. We do not want that to happen.

This committee is in charge of education from birth to death. We have Head Start--we have already passed that through the Senate and it is in conference now. That takes care of preschool. Of course, we have 64 other programs besides that that deal with preschool, and we probably need to do something about the proliferation of programs that have a lot of overlap in that area, but we have the Head Start one already going through the process.

The next bill we have been told we will work on in the committee is No Child Left Behind. That takes care of kindergarten through 12th grade. There has been a commission that has been formed that has presented us with a lot of ideas about what needs to be done. It is a bipartisan commission. I am sure a lot of that will be incorporated in the bill. There has been good bipartisan work in the committee on the ideas that have to be incorporated, some of the tweaks that have to be in No Child Left Behind to make it work even better. There is quite a bit of agreement. It has worked, but it can work better. We will be working on that next.

Of course, this is the Higher Education Act. We did it in two pieces. I will have some more comments about that in a moment.

But there is another piece missing, and I am hoping our committee will work on that soon, and that is the Workforce Investment Act. We passed that through the Senate twice, unanimously, in each of the previous two Congresses, but it has never been conferenced. We need to get that done; we could train 900,000 people a year to do higher skilled jobs. We don't need to keep exporting those jobs because we lack people with the skills. We need to train people with the skills. That is a bill that will do it. I think we have a good basis to work from on that and, again, a way to find bipartisan agreement. Some of the fear in the past is

what might happen in conference. The ones who had the fear of what might happen in conference will now be in charge of the conference, so that is not an excuse. We have to get that one done.

Education in America is both a right and privilege, and we have to get people to recognize the value of that privilege as we make sure all of them can have the education we promised--and we have made some very significant promises in those areas and have fulfilled many of them. This bill we are working on today is one of those. I am pleased we have been able to have both the reconciliation bill and the reauthorization bill considered within 5 days of one another.

By considering the entirety of the Higher Education Act, we are ensuring continued quality in the Federal student loan programs, while providing disclosure of information that students and their families need to make informed financial decisions. Those informed financial decisions--or uninformed ones--will have a significant impact on their future.

This is the second time in as many Congresses we have been on the brink of systemic reform of the Federal higher education programs. However, this time we will cross the brink and make these programs more efficient, as well as more effective. We will be allowed to meet the challenge of making higher education more accessible, more affordable, and particularly more accountable.

The American system of higher education is renowned throughout the world. American students will now be provided with the tools and assistance contained in both of these bills to complete their higher education and training and to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to be successful in the 21st century economy.

I supported reporting both bills out of committee. I did so with the expectation that they would be considered together as a whole by the Senate. I am very pleased that the Senate Democratic leadership worked with me and my colleagues to provide this opportunity to have an open and full debate on all aspects of the Higher Education Act. I look forward to moving both these bills together and ensuring a comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. There is no reason they cannot be combined at this point in time.

As debate on this legislation comes to a close, it is necessary to thank those who have worked long and hard on this bill. First and foremost, I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy. I would like to thank him for his commitment to keeping this process bipartisan and working with me and my Republican colleagues on the HELP Committee throughout this entire process, for maintaining an open position on ideas, and following through with those with focus so we could actually wind up with a bill.

And I thank him for his approach to the committee process so we use the markup to see what the intensity is and the number of improvements that are being suggested and not make it a straight up-or-down approach so we can modify them so they fit and we get the kind of bipartisanship that we have at this point in time. That is a tremendous task. I think our committee must handle about 40 percent of the things that come before the Senate, so it is a wide-ranging task and he does a marvelous job with it and he has been very inclusive and I thank him and congratulate him for that.

I thank those on my staff who have worked tirelessly--when I say ``tirelessly,'' I mean both sides have worked through evenings, weekends, and reached compromises--and later I will mention more specifically some of those people.

I think I have used my time.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, doesn't that run us into the policy meetings? We have some really important things to cover.

Mr. President, I would like about 2 minutes to finish up the thank-yous on this bill.

Mr. President, I ran out of time before I could thank members of my staff and others' staff who have participated in this bipartisan effort to get the Higher Education Act reauthorized. I would like to do that at this time because this bill is proof that a bipartisan effort can get a bill done.

In particular, I would like to thank Katherine McGuire, who is my committee staff director. She does an excellent job of keeping the trains running on time on a multitude of issues all at once. Her first higher education reauthorization was back in the early 1990s. She also provides an attitude and a focus that says: Let's get things done. And she is able to work with the other side, and has proven that she is trustworthy and knowledgeable on the issues. That goes a long way in making sure there can be a bipartisan effort, that willingness to work within common parameters and principles which helps us to get all of those things done.

I especially wish to thank Beth Buehlmann, who is my education policy director. Beth has devoted her career to improving educational opportunities for all Americans. From her work as a math teacher to her devotion to workforce training, Beth really knows what she is doing and brings extraordinary energy to the issue every day. Her knowledge and leadership have shaped education policy in our country over the last 30 years. She provides the same kind of focus and direction on education issues that Katherine does for the entire committee.

I also wish to thank the rest of the education team who greatly contributed to the bill: Ann Clough, Adam Briddell, Lindsay Hunsicker, and Kelly Hastings. They have worked diligently and, as I have mentioned, through weekends and evenings.

I also wish to thank Ilyse Schuman and her fantastic knowledge of working a bill through the Senate floor. She is one of the few lawyers I have on my staff. She gives that group of people a good name with her, again, work ethic, knowledge of the law, and wordsmithing.

I wish to thank Amy Shank, who is my budget expert, and has been doing that for several years. She knows the rules and the requirements and the capabilities of the budget process and keeps us all on our toes and ensures our work meets the budget requirements.

Finally, Greg Dean, who did a great job of organizing the amendment process. He is so attentive and he scurried to make sure that every little detail is plugged and that we are all up to speed on every one of those little details.

I would also like to thank members of Senator Kennedy's staff for their hard work: Michael Myers does a great job of coordinating with us and providing leadership on the issues, since they are in the leadership now. Senator Kennedy's staff director does that kind of work and is very cooperative with our side and sensitive to the priorities we bring up.

I thank Carmel Martin, J.D. LaRock, Missy Rohrbach, Emma Vadehra, and Erin Renner for their expertise on the issues. You should see the talent of these people and their knowledge of education, which you do not get to see, but you get to see the result of their work as we present it. Sometimes we do not do justice to all of the effort that they have put in.

Finally, I would like to thank all of the members of the HELP Committee and their staffs for their hard work throughout the process. This is one of the most demanding committees. We cover, as I mentioned, 40 percent of the issues that come before the Senate. That requires a lot of time, a lot of knowledge, and such a wide variety of issues that I think the members get a college education about every month, a college course of education about every month as we cover these different issues. I appreciate their help especially working on this college education bill.

It has been an interesting road and about 3 years' worth of work and all of it on a bipartisan basis. I thank all of those who have participated.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor on the Kennedy-Coburn amendment.

Mr. President, today I rise to support introduction of the Integrated Deepwater Reform Act.

Since 1790, the United States Coast Guard has served as the guardian of our shores. It began its service to the Nation as a lifesaving organization, protecting our mariners from the perils of the sea. Over time, its missions have come to encompass additional responsibilities including performing drug and migrant interdiction, enforcing fisheries regulations, and maintaining our Nation's waterways and aids to navigation. Following the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, the Coast Guard expanded its role in homeland security operations, becoming the agency charged with protecting our Nation from maritime threats.

Though we have expanded the role of this valiant service, we have not upgraded its equipment to the degree necessary to carry out the tasks it has been assigned. Current Coast Guard vessels comprise the third oldest naval fleet in the world. Some of its cutters still in service are over sixty years old. Recognizing the looming obsolescence of its legacy fleet, in the mid 1990s the Coast Guard embarked on an effort to create a wholly integrated system of ships, aircraft, sensors, and communications systems and called the effort Deepwater. Recapitalizing the Coast Guard remains one of this Nation's most important National Security initiatives.

However, recent events have made it clear that additional Congressional oversight is warranted for this major acquisitions program. Failure of the 123-foot patrol boat conversion program, and questions about the fatigue life of the hull of the National Security Cutter under the purview of Integrated Coast Guard Systems have called into question the value of this ``lead systems integrator.'' The contract as written has given the contractor too much autonomy and not enough focus on actual performance.

By placing restrictions on the structure of any agreements between the Coast Guard and its contractors, this bill will ensure that future Deepwater contracts protect the American taxpayer while allowing the Coast Guard to acquire the assets necessary to carry out its critical responsibilities. We cannot change the simple fact that in order to protect our Nation, the Coast Guard must be able to upgrade its existing assets. The safety of the brave men and women who serve in the Coast Guard, and the security of every American depends on the success of this program.

I remain convinced that the Integrated Deepwater Program is the appropriate vehicle for the Coast Guard's modernization. However, in order for the Coast Guard to receive the best assets at the best value for the American taxpayer, Congress must ensure that the service and the contractors recognizes their joint commitment to both excellence and fiscal responsibility. By limiting the use of a lead systems integrator, increasing requirements for open competition, requiring additional internal Coast Guard management, and increasing reporting requirements to Congress, this bill provides that assurance.

I am proud to add this bill to my record of Coast Guard oversight. I also would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Cantwell for all her hard work on this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins to introduce two pieces of legislation to help reverse the devastating population decline and economic distress that have plagued individuals and businesses in Aroostook County, the northernmost county in Maine, as well as in other parts of the country. What the first bill does is simple, it will bring all of Aroostook County under the Empowerment Zone (EZ) program. The legislation is identical to a bill that we introduced in the 108th Congress and was included in the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill in 2003 as passed by the Senate. The second piece of legislation would enable those economically depressed communities, already taking advantage of these incentives, to secure the full 15 years of targeted growth originally granted to the areas first designated as Empowerment Zones.

To fully grasp the importance of the former legislation, it is necessary to understand the unique situation facing the residents of Aroostook County. ``The County,'' as it is called by Mainers, is a vast and remote region of Maine. It shares more of its border with Canada than its neighboring Maine counties. It has the distinction of being the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Its geographic isolation is even more acute when considering that the county's relatively small population of 73,000 people are scattered throughout 6,672 square miles of rural countryside. Aroostook County is home to 71 organized townships, as well as 125 unorganized townships much of which is forest land and wilderness.

As profoundly remote as this geographic isolation may seem, it is the

economic isolation and the recent out-migration that has had the most devastating effect on the region. The economy of northern Maine has a historical dependence upon its natural resources, particularly forestry and agriculture. While these industries served the region well in previous decades, and continue to form the underpinnings of the local economy, many of these sectors have experienced decline and can no longer provide the number of quality jobs that residents require and deserve.

While officials in the region have put forward a herculean effort to redevelop the region, with nearly 1,000 new jobs at the Loring Commerce Center alone, Aroostook County is still experiencing a significant ``job deficit'', and as a result continues to lose population at an alarming rate. Since its peak in 1960, northern Maine's population has declined by 30 percent. Unfortunately, the Maine State Planning Office predicts that Aroostook County will continue losing population as more workers leave the area to seek opportunities and higher wages in southern Maine and the rest of New England.

In January 2002, a portion of Aroostook County was one of two regions that received Empowerment Zone status from the USDA for out-migration. The entire county experienced an out-migration of 15 percent from 86,936 in 1990 to 73,938 in 2000. Moreover, a staggering 40 percent of 15- to 29-year-olds left during the last decade.

The current zone boundaries were chosen based on the criteria that Empowerment Zones be no larger than 1,000 square miles, and have a maximum population of 30,000 for rural areas. The lines drawn for the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone were considered to be the most inclusive and reasonable given the constraints of the program. It should be noted as well that the boundaries were drawn based on the 1990 census, making the data significantly outdated at the start, and included the former Loring Air Force Base and its population of nearly 8,000 people, which had closed nearly 8 years before the designation, taking its military and much of its civilian workforces with it. The Maine State Planning Office estimated that the base closure resulted in the loss of 3,494 jobs directly related to the base and another 1,751 in associated industry sectors for a total loss of $106.9 million annual payroll dollars.

Some of the most distressed communities that have lost substantial population are not in the Empowerment Zone, and other communities, such as Houlton, literally are divided simply by a road, having one business on one side of the street with no Empowerment Zone designation across from a neighboring business on the other side of the street with full Empowerment Zone benefits. The economic factors for these communities and for these neighbors are the same as those areas within the Empowerment Zone. This designation is not meant to cause divisiveness within communities, it is created to augment a partnership for growth and to level the playing field for all Aroostook County communities who have equally suffered through continuing out-migration whether it be in Madawaska or Island Falls.

The legislation I am introducing would provide economic development opportunities to all reaches of Aroostook County by extending Empowerment Zone status to the entire county. This inclusive approach recognizes that the economic hardship and population out-migration are issues that the entire region must confront, and, as evidenced by their successful Round III EZ application, they are attempting to confront. I believe the challenges faced by Aroostook County are significant, but not insurmountable. This legislation would make great strides in improving the communities and business in northern Maine, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

With regards to the latter bill that I am offering today, I believe all Empowerment Zone communities need 15 years to reverse years of downward spiraling that originally effected their economies. I have long supported Empowerment Zone incentives and I believe that these targeted tax incentives provide struggling communities the best chance for sustained, long lasting economic renewal.

In 1994, Congress designated the first Empowerment Zones setting 2009, a 15-year time frame, as the date that these tax incentives would expire. The 2009 expiration date of Empowerment Zone status was held firm for Round II communities designated in 1997, and the Round III communities designated in 2002. As a result of the expiration date some communities such as Aroostook County, which was designated in 2002, are granted as few as 7 years to use tax incentives to overturn decades of decline and economic neglect.

Unfortunately, Aroostook's economic problems will not be fixed within the 7 short years this area qualifies for Empowerment Zone tax incentives. Instead a long-term and lasting commitment of at least 15 years is necessary to help Aroostook communities work their way to stronger economic prosperity. Many communities, such as Aroostook County, that were unable to qualify for Empowerment Zone status until 2002, are in dire need of the long-term 15-year window in which to address their stubborn causes of poverty.

Businesses operating within Empowerment Zones receive a 20 percent wage credit for the first $15,000 they pay in wages to local residents. Other tax incentives encourage businesses and industries to further commit to these communities. Companies with businesses in Empowerment Zones are eligible for an additional $35,000 worth of 179 business expensing--making these long-term business obligations more attractive, affordable and likely. Empowerment Zones are also eligible for expanded tax exempt financing for building the infrastructure communities need to attract long-term developers and business partners.

To qualify for Empowerment Zone status, communities develop comprehensive strategic plans that depend on these tax incentives to help them transform their economies. Each community's plan focuses on establishing long-term partnerships among private businesses, non profits, state, local, and federal government agencies to help develop the local economy. Together these parties use the community's strategic blue print to implement interconnected projects that address the factors creating the area's economic sickness. These types of projects concentrate on building much-needed business and industrial infrastructure, developing an educated workforce, and diversifying local economies away from a reliance on one employer or industry.

Through the Aroostook Partnership for Progress, and the businesses working in the Empowerment Zone, the County is making significant progress--the factors causing poverty in this rural part of Maine cannot be eradicated quickly. Aroostook County's strategic plan will take time to implement as infrastructure, industry and other initiatives produce greater economic capabilities and diversification. Though Aroostook County is working valiantly to overcome the factors causing their economic plight, they will need more than seven years to overcome 40 years of difficulties. I know that there are many other struggling Round II and Round III Empowerment Zone communities, such as Aroostook, who need the maximum, in order to reverse the poverty and underdevelopment also plaguing those areas.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the urgency of making a long-term pledge to communities using Empowerment Zone incentives to work its way out of long-term poverty. I hope that each Senator will support the communities in their states, currently undertaking the painful process of economic transformation, by supporting passage of this economic development bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate will proceed to the Homeland Security bill. I speak in advance of that happening.

In every State of the Union Address since the terrorist attacks on 9/ 11, the President has raised the specter of another attack. This past January, the President said--hear me, the President said:

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the

shoreless ambitions of this enemy . . . I wish I could report

to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. It remains

the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper

tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement and military

action to do our duty . . . to protect the American people.

Let me say that again. The President said:

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the

shoreless ambitions of this enemy . . . I wish I could report

to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. It remains

the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper

tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement and military

action to do our duty--

To do our duty--

to protect the American people.

And yet despite the President's warnings and the President's promises, the President's budget failed to commit significant resources to address these dangers. Too often the Department of Homeland Security settles for security that looks good on paper but leaves serious gaps in the defense of our homeland. There is too much rhetoric on homeland security and too little action; too much wind--too much wind--and not enough wisdom.

Despite the August 2006 arrests in Britain of terrorists determined to blow passenger aircraft out of the sky over the Atlantic, we still don't have proven technology to detect liquid explosives.

I wish to say that again. Hear me now; hear me. Despite the August 2006 arrests in Britain of terrorists determined to blow passenger aircraft out of the sky over the Atlantic, we still don't have proven technology to detect liquid explosives.

On an average day, 7,500 tons of cargo is placed in the holds of passenger aircraft at our Nation's airports, little of which is screened for explosives and virtually none is screened for radiation. Our seaports remain vulnerable. Our police, firefighters, emergency medical teams, and emergency managers remain understaffed and underprepared to handle the challenges of the times.

The White House--hear me down there--the White House talks a good

game, but talk is cheap, cheap, cheap. But security is not cheap. The White House asserted that its budget proposes an 8-percent increase for the Department of Homeland Security. However, after sifting through the gimmicks, we found that it is a 1.7-percent increase above current funding. That is barely enough to cover inflation for existing programs. More paper security; more paper security. More failed promises; more failed promises. We have a responsibility. We have a responsibility; yes, we have a responsibility to the people of this country to do better, and this legislation meets that responsibility.

For border security, the bill provides the funds to hire 3,000 new Border Patrol agents. The bill also includes $1 billion for border fencing, infrastructure, and technology. Our bill adds funds for 4,000 new detention beds, 3,050 more detention beds than are requested by the President. Get that? We commit the funds that are essential for a coordinated, comprehensive border security effort.

Real security cannot be done on the cheap. Hear me. Real security cannot be done on the cheap.

For aviation security, the bill invests funds that will help save lives, and it may be your life, it may be your life, it may be your life, maybe someone's life whom you know, it may be some child's life, but it cannot be done on the cheap.

Despite a documented need for $3.6 billion to purchase and install explosives detection systems, the President--get this--the President, the President of the United States, proposes to cut, the explosives detection program by 17 percent. The bill provides $89.4 million above the President's request to purchase and install explosives detection equipment at airports. That is for you, the people of this country, to install this equipment at airports for your security.

We take on the challenge of screening cargo before it is loaded onto aircraft, which you, the people of this country--the passengers--will board.

The bill includes $66 million, $10 million above the request--$10 million above the President's request--to deploy 70 additional canine teams--God bless them, those good, great dogs--to deploy 70 additional canine teams, and more screening technology at airports nationwide, at airports where the people of this country will board nationwide.

Funds are also provided to establish 20 radiation screening teams at key U.S. international airports to inspect aircraft and cargo. You, the people out there, will be boarding these aircraft. Let me say it again. Funds are also provided to establish 20 radiation screening teams at key U.S. international airports to inspect aircraft, which you will board, and cargo, which will be boarded by you, the people. All of this money is well spent. It will protect human lives and cargo and aircraft.

In this legislation, we also speed up the work on disaster preparation. Two years ago--how soon we forget--just 2 years ago, Hurricane Katrina demonstrated our dismal failure in dealing with a major disaster. Hurricane Rita showed that we do not know how to organize an effective mass evacuation. I want to say that again. Hurricane Rita showed that we do not know how to organize an effective mass evacuation. Now, we better get on it. We better get with it. I am going to say it once again: Hurricane Rita showed that we--that is you and that is me--do not know how to organize an effective mass evacuation. That is hard to believe.

Maybe it isn't so hard.

The White House After Action Report on the hurricanes concluded, and I quote from that report. I am quoting from the White House After Action Report, not my report.

We are not as prepared as we need to be at all levels

within this country.

We are not as prepared as we need to be at all levels within the country. What an understatement. What an understatement. Yet the President's budget proposes a $1.2 billion cut--a cut--in vital homeland security grant programs, including funds for disaster preparations and first responder training. Where, oh where, is the sense in that?

According to the Department of Homeland Security's own estimates, two-thirds of the States and urban areas do not have adequate plans to respond to a catastrophic event. This legislation rejects the proposed budget cuts and puts us on the right track--planning and training for a catastrophic event.

The bill that is before the Senate increases first responder funding by $644 million. The President signed the SAFE Port Act last year with great fanfare. Yet 9 months later, his budget--the President's budget-- includes no additional funds for the new security requirements contained in the law that the President signed. This bill makes good on the promises of the SAFE Port Act, hiring specialists to help inspect the 11 million containers that come into the United States every year. The bill commits funds directly to our ports to tighten security.

Let me say that again: The bill commits funds directly to our ports to tighten security--security for you, the people out there--at the ports. Port security grants are increased by $190 million to the fully authorized level of $400 million. We double the frequency of unannounced Coast Guard inspections at our port facilities.

Get that? You better wake up out there. I am going to say it again: We double the frequency of unannounced Coast Guard inspections at our port facilities, and we fund the installation of radiation detection equipment at our ports to guard against nuclear weapons and dirty bombs. I will say that again: We fund the installation of radiation detection equipment at our ports to guard against nuclear weapons and dirty bombs.

The threat at our ports needs to be addressed now. It is foolish to delay any longer. In order to restore the ill-considered cuts proposed by the President for equipping and training our first responders, and to fund the increases that I have described for border, port, and aviation security, the bill exceeds the President's request by $2.25 billion.

Incredibly, President Bush has threatened to veto the homeland security funding bill. Why? Because of what he, the President, labels as excessive spending. Excessive spending. That is what President Bush said. Let me read that again: President Bush has threatened to veto the homeland security funding bill--that is for you, the people out there in the hills and valleys of this great land. Why? He has threatened to veto the homeland security funding bill because of what he labels as excessive spending.

The $2.25 billion increase in this bill is about what we spend in 1 week--1 week--in Iraq. Let me say that again. Now listen to me. Hear me now. Incredibly, President Bush has threatened to veto the homeland security funding bill because of what he labels as excessive spending. Yet the $2.25 billion increase in this bill is about what we spend in 1 week in Iraq.

Just 2 weeks ago, the Secretary of Homeland Security was quoted as saying that it was his gut feeling that the United States faces an increased threat of attack this summer. Now, that is not Robert Byrd making that assertion. Let me say it again. Just 2 weeks ago, the Secretary of Homeland Security was quoted as saying--did you hear that--he was quoted as saying that it was his gut feeling--that is pretty deep--that our country faces an increased threat of attack this summer. That is now, isn't it? This is July. This summer.

On the heels of the Secretary's warnings, the administration, our administration, the Bush administration, has released its latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. Where is that? Here, the U.S. homeland. I will quote from the report. This is not Robert Byrd talking, this is the report, the National Intelligence Estimate, concerning the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland.

We judge the U.S. Homeland will face a persistent and

evolving terrorist threat over the next three years. The main

threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups and cells,

especially al-Qaida, driven by their undiminished intent to

attack the Homeland--

That is my homeland. That is your homeland.

and a continued effort by these terrorist groups to adapt

and improve their capabilities. . . .[W]e judge that al-Qaida

will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.

Where? Not out there, here. Here is everywhere in our homeland.

As a result, we judge that the United States currently is

in a heightened threat

environment. . . .We assess that al-Qaida's Homeland plotting

is likely to continue to focus on prominent political,

economic and infrastructure targets with the goal of

producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction,

significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S.

population.

These are the words written by the best intelligence analysts in our Government. Those are the words that should force our Government, both in the executive and in the legislative branches, to reevaluate the priority that we are giving to funding to stop terrorist attacks against this country, our country--my country, your country, our country.

I call on the President--yes, I call on the President of the United States--to reconsider his veto threat in light of the concerns raised by his own administration.

The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is critical to the safety of our citizens. The potential threats are enormous. The Congress must strike a balance that preserves our cherished freedoms and provides for enhanced security.

We need to stop squabbling and pass the Homeland Security bill for the President's speedy signature. This is no time to jockey for political points or to argue over minor differences. The Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 29 to 0, has produced a balanced and responsible bill which needs action now.

I thank Senator Cochran and his able staff for their support in producing this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I yield.

Yes, Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague. The Senate needs to hear the other side; all sides, all sides. I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 2381

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Utah in his comments. Many of the citizens of my State are members of the LDS Church and obviously strong leaders who have done exactly in Idaho what he said his forebears did in Utah. They made the deserts bloom, and they built a culture and a religious base that serves my State so very well today.

Western Wildfires

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about something that is going on in the West as we speak, that is a tragedy in reality and something that certainly we all ought to be aware of. As I got on the plane Friday morning in Minneapolis in my commute to Idaho, a group of young men and women got on my plane: firefighters of the State of Missouri. They were flying to Idaho to help Idahoans extinguish the wildfires burning there. I thank them and all of the brave firefighters who have been battling these immense wildfires in a season that is dramatic as we speak.

I got on the plane yesterday morning in Boise to return to Washington. Another group of young men and women, bedraggled, tired, and smelling of smoke, got on the plane to fly back to Minneapolis. That was another group of firefighters who were flown in from the Eastern United States to help out in Idaho and the Great Basin West. They were simply tired and returning home.

We are, in Idaho and in the West, at this moment experiencing one of the most dramatic wildfire seasons in our history. I say that because the season in reality has just started. From a historic perspective, it is late July, August, and September that the fire season we think of on our public lands, both forested and grasslands, usually begins.

Last year, we went through the worst fire season in history based on total acreage burned. As I speak, we are now ahead of last year and burning even greater. Headlines in the local largest daily in Idaho yesterday said: more fires burning in Idaho than any other State in the Nation, well over 600,000 acres burned and many burning.

Yesterday morning, five counties in the State of Idaho were declared a state of emergency due to those wildfires burning. Currently, the largest fire burning in the United States is the Murphy complex, estimated to be 570,000 acres; 7,500 people were evacuated from the area. Evacuations were being ordered across the State due to the number of fires and the extreme of the fire behavior: 100-degree temperatures in an area where that extraordinary heat has reduced the dew point to such a situation that anything that grows becomes kindling for a wildfire.

Of the 72 large fires in the United States, half of those burning today are in the State of Nevada and in my State of Idaho. The weather outlook has gone from bad to horrible, as these temperatures continue and as the Great Basin of the United States progressively dries out. More hot and dry weather is expected along with dry lightning, fires, and wind storms. As these lightning storms sweep through, literally thousands of strikes occur, and hundreds of fires can be set in one evening across the public lands of the West.

As I mentioned, the 2006 fire season broke several records, including acreage. By the end of this week, we will have surpassed that increase as it relates to time and place of the fire season. We have obviously not yet burned the 10 million acres of last year, but by measurement this fire season is now worse.

Almost 100 years ago, the Forest Service started something. They started with a commitment and a philosophy to full fire suppression. Now I take you to a little bit of history as to what may be producing the very dramatic fire season we experienced last year and the year before, and we are now experiencing today. During that time, the Forest Service's aim was to extinguish every fire, man-made or lightning caused. With the exception of the last 15 years, the timber industry, on our public lands, enjoyed booming success during the same period. So while Mother Nature was not allowed to burn the forest, man was allowed to come in over the last 100 years and thin and clean. We called it logging. That produced the timber for the home and building industries. As a result, it is arguable that wildfires were kept somewhat under control. Not only did we put the fires out, but we were taking the fuels off the land.

In the 1990s, during the Clinton years, as a result of the impact of a variety of public policies, from the Endangered Species Act to the New Forest Management Act to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, and a lot of other combinations, we began to progressively reduce the overall cut of timber on public lands. In the 8 years of Bill Clinton, we reduced the allowable cut.

Here are the figures on this chart. It is patterned by revenue flow. We reduced the allowable cut of timber on our public lands by 80 percent--not 8 percent, by well over 80 percent. So if you follow the green line on this chart, you follow the revenue flow that was coming from our public lands through the U.S. Forest Service. Of course, it was during that time that the Forest Service had money. As a result, they had the money to fight the fires. Then you see the decline on the chart.

As we discontinued timber harvests on our public lands, the revenue no longer was produced. But something else was happening. We were leaving on our public lands dramatic increases in timber and brush and, in today's situation, fuel for the fires.

So in part, the West is burning today because of public policy, because of attitude, not because of Mother Nature. Mother Nature has ebbed and flowed over time. But when Mother Nature is taken out of balance by man's practices and policies, dramatic results can occur. As the revenues declined and they paralleled human activity on the public lands, dramatic increases in fire resulted.

What do we do about it? For the last several years I have stood on the Senate floor and participated in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and chaired the Forestry Subcommittee for many of these years and have said openly and publicly: We, by our public policy, have destroyed the U.S. Forest Service. We bankrupted it. It no longer has any money. In so doing, we keep putting greater burden on it, and we won't fund it.

We are not in the habit of funding it because timber sales historically funded the U.S. Forest Service. It not only funded all of their practices, both logging and trail clearing and wildlife

management and habitat control, it did something else: It put money into the U.S. Treasury. We created a unique balance over the last 100 years because you can't predict a fire season. You have the revenue flow coming in. So we simply borrowed the money to fight fires from the different accounts of the U.S. Forest Service and at the end of the year, when the fire season was over and all the bills were paid, we simply replenished all of the accounts of the U.S. Forest Service that it used to manage the different components of the Forest Service itself.

It no longer happens today. We are still borrowing money from accounts to fight fires, but there is no money in the accounts. At the end of the year, because of tight budgets, we don't replenish the money from the general fund of the U.S. Government. There is no money there. Timber receipts used to fund the money, used to create the balance, used to do a lot of things. They no longer exist, in large part because of public policy.

What is happening in Idaho and across the West at this moment, when you see the valleys full of smoke and the mountains full of smoke and the skies with dark bands of carbon-filled air across the West, our natural resources are literally going up in smoke. What is burning out there are trees. It is also watersheds and water quality and wildlife habitat. All of that is disappearing in a ball of fire, and it should not be that way.

What are the solutions? Throwing more money at fire suppression? Well, we have been doing that by ever increasing amounts every year for the last 5 or 6 years, to the tune of billions of dollars annually.

I am the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I put in another half billion dollars to fight fires, and it will quickly go up in smoke at the rate the fires are burning in the West.

What is the solution? More active management? Yes. More active management on our public lands will help the fire situation because active management--if you look at the Healthy Forests Act we passed several years ago--means you are in there thinning, you are in there cleaning the underbrush, you are doing the kind of things that fire would have done naturally 100 years ago. But we changed the circumstance, and we changed the environment.

Fire is unique in that it can be beneficial if it is handled appropriately. If you have 100 trees per acre, and fire is allowed to amble through and burn out all of the underbrush, it does not kill the tree, in many instances. But if you have 400 trees per acre of the kind we have allowed to happen over the last good number of decades, then it burns everything because the fire is so intense by the volume of fuel on the forest floor. That is a circumstance the West is experiencing, as we speak.

Fire is a unique natural disaster because humankind has found a way to fight it. It can change the situation that breeds fire. How do you fight a tornado? Well, you cannot. Yet it is called a natural disaster. How do you fight a hurricane? Well, you cannot. You can predict them, and you get out of their way, because it is a natural disaster. How do you fight a wildfire? Give me a shovel, give me the tools, give me a better environment--a managed environment, if you will--and I can fight a wildfire. Do not allow Federal judges to be land managers. Allow foresters to be land managers in the right context of public policy and you can fight a wildfire. Give me the tools necessary in the local communities to do so, and you can fight a wildfire. Allow me to use a chain saw selectively in the forest to thin them and clean them, and you can fight a wildfire. But, all in the name of the environment, we have decided to do none of these. We have decided to simply preserve and allow it to be natural.

Let me conclude with these thoughts. The fires that are burning in the West today are not natural. They are hotter, they are more intense, they are more destructive than any forest fires we have seen in our forests literally within a century. The reason is quite simple. The 100 trees per acre I talked about that Lewis and Clark might have ambled through 200 years ago are the same acres in which there are now 400 trees. Because of the heat and the drought, they are dead or dying, and they have created a fuel load on our forest floor that is unprecedented. Yet, we, by public policy, have tied the hands of our land managers. As a result, literally millions of acres are now burning annually. For what reason? I believe it is because we, as a manager of public and natural resources, have failed.

There are reasonable ways to do so. There is an alternative besides simply locking it up and letting it burn. Yes, the skies of Idaho and the Great Basin West are full of smoke at this moment. That smoke is our natural resources going up in smoke, literally.

If we are worried about climate change, and we are worried about the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere, the fires on the public lands of this Nation this year will put more carbon in the atmosphere than any 1 year of automobile driving. Yet somehow there are those who are willing to ignore it only in the reality that it is nature and uncontrollable. I would argue that is not true because 30 years ago we did not have these kinds of fires, and 20 years ago we did not have them, even though we had peaks of drought and dryness and heat.

Our professionals told us some time ago if we did not become, once again, active managers of our public land resource it would go up in smoke--and it is.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.