SURE Act

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Risch, the National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009.

This bipartisan bill will provide additional tools and resources to the U.S. Forest Service to help address a serious natural disaster in many western forests--the deaths of millions of acres of trees due to insect infestations. This is an issue of long-standing concern in the West and of the utmost importance. Since my very first days in Congress nearly 11 years ago, I have been fighting for Colorado's forest health. This day has been a long time in coming for me, but it is by no means the end of the fight. We still have a long way to go in combating this problem, and it is a fight I intend to see to the end.

The bill that Senator Risch and I are introducing today addresses any and all insect and disease outbreaks in our national forests. But this bill is in direct response to an especially pronounced epidemic of bark beetles in western States. This epidemic is creating serious concerns in our communities regarding our forested regions, the recreational economy of these areas, and water supplies and infrastructure that exist on these lands.

In essence, this bill is about securing our communities from a natural threat--a threat that is as potentially devastating and disruptive as a hurricane or an earthquake. This threat is a function of both human actions and natural processes--especially global climate change.

I recently had the chance to show one of our colleagues the devastating impact of the bark beetle epidemic. Senator John McCain joined me at a hearing of the National Parks Subcommittee, which I chair, in August in Estes Park, CO. Senator McCain and I saw firsthand the march of the bark beetle as it is making its way through Rocky Mountain National Park. We were both struck by the extent of dead trees colored rust red by this insect.

Bark beetles and other insects that feed on trees are a natural part of the forest ecology. When present at normal levels, they provide benefits to the forest ecology by thinning dense tree stands, creating openings for wildlife, and promoting cyclical regrowth.

Today, various parts of the U.S.--but especially western States-- continue to experience unnaturally large-scale infestations of bark beetles and other insects that have resulted from past policies and warming climate conditions.

Recent periods of drought have weakened the trees on Forest Service land and caused the trees to be more susceptible to fire and insects. In addition, population growth on land adjacent to Forest Service land has exacerbated the threats posed by insect-killed trees by placing large numbers of citizens, homes, and businesses at greater risk of catastrophic wildland fire.

And because hundreds of miles of power transmission lines and dozens of communication sites are surrounded by dead trees that will fall due to rotted root systems, the probability that trees will fall on power transmission lines, thereby resulting in wildfires and power transmission disruptions for long periods of time, has substantially increased.

Falling dead trees are also a hazard along hundreds of miles of roads and trails, threatening the safety of motorists and recreationists and disrupting access to, and through, Forest Service land. Hundreds of developed recreation sites, including campgrounds, picnic areas, and trailheads, contain dead trees that threaten recreationists. If these dead trees are not removed, these developed recreation sites will need to be closed to preserve public safety. We are in fact experiencing these closures in Colorado.

Moreover, parcels of Forest Service land in many locations contain headwaters of water supplies for many communities. Severe wildfires that remove vegetative cover pose a threat to the quantity and quality of water by exposing soil to erosion, thereby causing a transfer of sediment to rivers, reservoirs, and water conveyance systems. In other words, the fire threats posed by these dead trees can have serious implications to providing water not only to local communities, but also to major cities downstream that rely upon rivers and streams flowing from forested mountain regions.

All of these concerns demand that we take action to help address these threats. That is what this bipartisan bill does.

It does so by establishing ``insect emergency areas''--that is, areas defined by the Forest Service as experiencing significant tree mortality that

results in increased wildfire threats and risks to people and infrastructure from falling dead trees. These areas would be in the States from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific coast, States that are experiencing large-scale insect outbreaks.

Within these areas, the Forest Service would be directed to provide priority treatment to reduce these threats. The Forest Service would also be allowed to apply funds from the Agricultural Credit Act program, which compensates individuals for removing biomass for productive uses, towards the removal of beetle-killed trees.

The bill also provides incentives to convert this removed vegetation into biofuels.

It allows the Forest Service to apply the streamlined National Environmental Policy Act provisions to expedite environmental analysis of the treatment work that is urgently needed in these high-priority emergency areas.

In addition to this focus on emergency areas the bill authorizes an important tool to help communities respond to wildfire threats on nearby Forest Service land. The States of Colorado and Utah have had the benefit of this tool since it was provided by Congress in 2000. This tool, called the ``Good Neighbor Authority,'' allows the Forest Service to contract with state foresters to enter Forest Service lands and implement treatments to reduce threats next to homes and private property whose owners have, in many cases, removed dead trees and performed treatments on their own property adjacent to Forest Service land. This program has been very successful, and the bill we are introducing today will allow all states to benefit from this authority and make it permanent law.

The bill also helps the Forest Service more effectively implement ``stewardship contracting'' as a tool for fuels treatment work. This contracting, which is distinct from traditional timber sale contracts, allows the Forest Service to fashion agreements to perform treatment for trees--like insect-killed trees--that may not have high commercial value. This program has also been extremely successful in helping to reduce fire threats in areas that do not possess high commercially valued timber.

However, the Forest Service has not had the funding it needs to use this tool more extensively. As a result, the bill would make this ``stewardship contracting'' program permanent, and it would eliminate the requirement that the Forest Service set aside funds in the very unlikely event that it would have to cancel these contracts and pay back the contractors. The bill would authorize the Forest Service to use other funds to cancel these contracts as well as seek appropriations to pay for any contract cancellations. In so doing, the bill will help make this tool more available and allow more funds to be applied to urgently needed, on-the-ground treatment work.

I have been working with Colorado communities, the Forest Service and stakeholders since 2000 on forest health issues and responding to this bark beetle threat. I have supported providing additional tools and resources to the Forest Service to respond to this threat, such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and focusing increased funds in the high hazard wildland/urban interface near communities.

This bill is an effort to continue providing such tools and resources so that we can reduce the impacts to people and property, reduce loss of life fighting catastrophic wildfires, and promote a more healthy forest ecosystem. I am relieved that we in Colorado did not experience a serious wildfire season this year like we have experienced in years past--and like we will probably face in the years ahead. But we must be ready to respond to these fires that will inevitably come. This bill takes a step in that direction. It will not solve all issues related to forest health or stop all fires. Fire is a necessary part of our forests. But the bill will help us reduce threats and promote healthy ecosystems and economies.

I look forward to working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in seeing this bill passed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend for 1 year the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, ECASLA. Without this extension, hundreds of thousands of students may not have access to student loans for the 2010-2011 academic year.

Since 1965, the Federal Family Education Loan, FFEL, program has successfully helped millions of Americans realize the dream of a college education. Today, it continues to provide student loans for nearly 70 percent of America's college students at over 3,400 schools. However, during the credit crisis of 2008 many private, non-profit FFEL lenders encountered difficulty raising the necessary capital to make student loans, and others left the FFEL program. Congress responded by passing the bipartisan, cost-neutral Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008. ECASLA preserved liquidity in the student loan market by giving the Secretary of Education temporary authority to purchase student loans made under the FFEL program. It has been a resounding success--it has preserved liquidity in the student loan market, it has been cost neutral, in fact it has generated revenue and, most importantly, it has maintained student access to FFEL loans.

However, while it was meant to be temporary, serious problems persist in the financial markets and many private, non-profit FFEL lenders are again considering leaving the FFEL program when ECASLA expires on July 1, 2010. The potential consequences could be catastrophic for America's college students, many of whom will be unable to secure student loans for 2010-2011 academic year without a functioning FFEL program.

Given this predicament, the solution is simple--extend ECASLA for an additional year. Unfortunately, instead of working with Congress to pass a clean, bipartisan, one-year extension of ECASLA, the Department of Education is pursuing yet another government takeover and placing undue pressure on FFEL-participating schools to switch to the government-run Direct Loan, DL, program. Some schools will make this choice, but most do not want to because the FFEL program provides a product and services that meet individual student needs rather than the one-size-fits-all approach of the government-run DL program.

Moreover, schools begin making financial aid determinations in January--just seven weeks from now. Given that it can take 4 months to make the switch to the government-run DL program, most schools do not have the time, staff, resources or capacity to make the switch while at the same time attending to the financial aid needs of current and enrolling students. Furthermore, making the switch is not simply a matter of ``flipping a switch,'' as the Department of Education asserts. Among other things, schools must install new computer software, hire and train financial aid personnel, and receive substantial technical assistance from the Department of Education. While the Department has been able to successfully assist the several hundred schools that have made the switch over the past year, thousands will need assistance over the next 7 months. The Department simply does not have the resources to devote the necessary time and attention to all of these schools, which will frantically be trying to switch before ECASLA expires on July 1, 2010.

At this point, the only responsible course of action for Congress is to pass a clean, one-year extension of ECASLA. This will ensure that students have access to student loans, and will give Congress the time needed to have a serious and well thought discussion about the future of the Federal student loan program.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening and Updating Resources and Equipment, SURE, Act, a bill that will enable our country's first responders to maintain important equipment to protect our communities. I thank Senator Voinovich for his support of this important legislation. First responders across the country provide critical protection from attacks on our Nation, and we should ensure they have the tools they need to keep our communities safe and prepared.

On September 22, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced a considerable change in their policy regarding the use of preparedness grants. The new guidelines state that recipients of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program SHSGP, funds may no longer use the funds for maintenance of equipment beyond the period of performance for the grant. This shifts the burden of maintenance costs for important homeland security equipment to States and communities, many of which are already struggling in the current economic downturn.

Much of the equipment purchased with these grants is complex and costly to maintain, and disallowing the use of grants to cover expensive maintenance costs means that many communities will have to forego the use of systems in which they have already invested precious resources. Also, many State and local governments may be unable to purchase essential equipment because they would be unable to cover the maintenance costs in future years.

A plan to implement a statewide communications system for first responders in my home state of Vermont is severely hampered by this policy change. State and local officials have been developing this system, known as the Lifeline System, for years and have planned for implementation by combining portions of 4 years of SHSGP grants with additional law enforcement funding. Upon completion of this important system for statewide coordination, considerable funds will be required to ensure that the system remains effective. If Vermont is unable to use preparedness grants for future maintenance, the Lifeline System may become inoperable, severely diminishing statewide coordination for homeland security and emergency management. I have heard from law enforcement officials in Vermont like Lieutenant Michael Manning of the Vermont State Police about how changes in these grant programs will affect state emergency law enforcement services.

The SURE Act would make changes to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify that the administrator of these grants may not place limitations on the use of preparedness grants for maintenance costs. This important clarification means that State and local law enforcement will be able to apply funds they receive to sustain the vital systems and equipment that have been put in place to keep our communities safe.

Our Nation's law enforcement officers deserve our commitment to provide them with the tools they need to carry out their duties. I support and respect our State and local police officers and all of our first responders, and am proud to recognize their role in upholding the rule of law and keeping our Nation safe and secure.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening and Updating Resources and Equipment, SURE, Act, a bill that will enable our country's first responders to maintain important equipment to protect our communities. I thank Senator Voinovich for his support of this important legislation. First responders across the country provide critical protection from attacks on our Nation, and we should ensure they have the tools they need to keep our communities safe and prepared.

On September 22, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced a considerable change in their policy regarding the use of preparedness grants. The new guidelines state that recipients of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program SHSGP, funds may no longer use the funds for maintenance of equipment beyond the period of performance for the grant. This shifts the burden of maintenance costs for important homeland security equipment to States and communities, many of which are already struggling in the current economic downturn.

Much of the equipment purchased with these grants is complex and costly to maintain, and disallowing the use of grants to cover expensive maintenance costs means that many communities will have to forego the use of systems in which they have already invested precious resources. Also, many State and local governments may be unable to purchase essential equipment because they would be unable to cover the maintenance costs in future years.

A plan to implement a statewide communications system for first responders in my home state of Vermont is severely hampered by this policy change. State and local officials have been developing this system, known as the Lifeline System, for years and have planned for implementation by combining portions of 4 years of SHSGP grants with additional law enforcement funding. Upon completion of this important system for statewide coordination, considerable funds will be required to ensure that the system remains effective. If Vermont is unable to use preparedness grants for future maintenance, the Lifeline System may become inoperable, severely diminishing statewide coordination for homeland security and emergency management. I have heard from law enforcement officials in Vermont like Lieutenant Michael Manning of the Vermont State Police about how changes in these grant programs will affect state emergency law enforcement services.

The SURE Act would make changes to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify that the administrator of these grants may not place limitations on the use of preparedness grants for maintenance costs. This important clarification means that State and local law enforcement will be able to apply funds they receive to sustain the vital systems and equipment that have been put in place to keep our communities safe.

Our Nation's law enforcement officers deserve our commitment to provide them with the tools they need to carry out their duties. I support and respect our State and local police officers and all of our first responders, and am proud to recognize their role in upholding the rule of law and keeping our Nation safe and secure.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Ron Wyden, Max Baucus, and Jon Tester, as I introduce the Forest Harvest Opportunity Act. This legislation will provide a very simple, yet critical, solution to a significant problem currently facing timber communities across the country.

As we all know, rural communities across the country have been hit particularly hard by our current economic recession. The unemployment rate for rural counties is far greater than the national average; it surpasses 20 percent in many of the rural communities in my own home state. As my colleagues have heard me mention on numerous occasions, many of our rural communities have been doubly hurt by the current economic recession because they depend on harvests from federally-owned forest land as a major component of their economies. These communities have already been struggling because timber harvests on our Federal land have been declining, but they are facing even worse situations today because the collapse of the housing market has caused a precipitous drop in timber prices.

For some of our forestry companies, this creates an even worse situation: the contracts they have to harvest timber on Federal land are now worthless. Many of these contracts were signed with the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management before the recession, when timber prices were still high. However, because of the decline in timber prices, harvesting today would cost forest companies more than the wood is worth and could cause ruinous problems for some of these companies.

The solution is simple common sense: allow companies to apply for additional time to harvest wood they have contracted for in times of unique economic circumstances. This simple change would allow these companies to delay the harvest until the price of timber had returned to a point that enabled the forest companies to earn a profit on the harvest. This change is not a novel idea. In fact, the Forest Service has rules in place allowing to do exactly that. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management does not have similar rules in place. So, based simply on which agency a company has a contract with--and in Oregon Forest Service and BLM lands can be side-by-side--these companies may be forced to harvest timber at a loss or walk away from a contract they have won after a fair bidding process.

The Forest Harvest Opportunity Act provides a simple solution and allows these companies--and only companies who have contracts right now during the current recession--to petition for and receive an extension so they can harvest when timber prices return to a normal rate. This bill is a simple solution to address an important problem. Enacting this legislation would provide significant economic help for communities that are already among the hardest-hit by this economic downturn. I look forward to working with my colleagues for its passage.

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