Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Robert Casey, Herb Kohl, and Tom Udall to introduce the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009.

Health care reform is a national priority--far too many Americans do not have access to meaningful, affordable health insurance. But even if every person in the U.S. had health insurance, we do not have a cohesive or coordinated strategy to address health workforce emergencies and shortages, and problems with reliable access to quality, affordable care. Over 20 percent of Americans are living in health professions shortage areas without access to adequate medical, dental, and mental and behavioral health services. This workforce deficiency will worsen as the population ages and grows by an estimated 25 million individuals per decade and, could be severely exacerbated by epidemics and disasters. It is estimated that without intervention, the United States will experience shortages of as many as 200,000 physicians and one million nurses by 2020. It takes many years to create a pipeline of health professionals. I am introducing the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 to coordinate our health workforce strategy, to build and maintain this pipeline, so that health and safety of every American is protected. The legislation is based on the most recent recommendations developed by Council on Graduate Medical Education and other health workforce experts.

This legislation addresses these issues in an unprecedented and comprehensive manner. It creates a Permanent National Health Workforce Commission to assure that the Federal investment in the education of health professionals is a public good that address the needs of the American people. The Commission is tasked to design, revise, implement and evaluate programs, grants, and regulations related to the nation's health workforce.

The Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 expands the Medicare medical home demonstration project. This pilot program would include 1,000 medical home primary care providers working in interdisciplinary teams. These clinicians will provide the highest quality medical care using the best health information technology, and personalized, coordinated, and accessible care.

But new models are not enough. We have allowed our primary care educational infrastructure to crumble. Without intervention, the decline will likely continue, and access to care in underserved areas will rapidly deteriorate. Family physicians represent 58 percent of the rural physician workforce, 70 percent of non-federal physicians in whole-county health professional shortage areas, and 78 percent of primary care physician full-time equivalents in the National Health Service Corps. Yet, the number of graduates from medical school in the U.S. who choose to practice family medicine has plummeted 50 percent in less than 10 years. Currently, less than 5 percent of graduates from medical school specialize in primary care. This is despite the fact that one of the most significant measures of the effectiveness and efficiency of a healthcare system is the degree to which the population has access to meaningful and coordinated primary care.

Experts tell us that the dearth of primary care providers may be attributed to many factors including low reimbursement levels and a lack of federal incentives to teaching institutions to promote primary care. My legislation would allow the National Health Workforce Commission to analyze these issues and recommend solutions including changes in Federal reimbursement systems. For example, this bill calls for improved transparency and accountability for Federal dollars spent for medical education through direct Graduate Medical Education, GME, and Indirect Medical Education, IME, and money paid in Disproportionate Share, DSH, support for safety net services provided under the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

This legislation also substantially increases funding for the National Health Service Corps. This will help provide healthcare access to the areas of our country that are in most desperate need. Also, included are expanded loan forgiveness and grant programs to develop new training programs in rural and other underserved communities to help us train health professionals in areas where they are needed.

The Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 establishes a U.S. Public Health Sciences Track to train physicians, dentists, nurses, physician assistants, mental and behavior health specialists, pharmacists, and public health professionals emphasizing team-based service, public health, epidemiology, and emergency preparedness and response in affiliated institutions. Students in this program are accepted as Commission Corps officers in the U.S. Public Health Service and will receive tuition remission and a stipend with a two year service commitment for each year of school covered. This group will form an elite cadre of healthcare professionals that can be deployed when epidemics, natural or other disasters strike.

I am introducing the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009 with the understanding that our health workforce shortfall cannot be solved using a piecemeal approach. We must address health workforce issues in health care reform to guarantee access to quality care for all Americans but we must also ensure that taxpayer dollars used to support health professions education are spent wisely.

This legislation has received widespread support and is endorsement by the: National Association of Community Health Centers, National Rural Health Association, American Medical Students Association, Trust for America's Health, American Psychological Association, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American Academy of Physician Assistants, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, National Rural Recruitment and Retention Network, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, New Mexico Health Resources, New Mexico Medical Society, New Mexico Chapter of the American College of Physicians, and the Santa Fe Project Access.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in support of the Health Access and Health Professions Supply Act of 2009.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009. This legislation would reform the antiquated Mining Law of 1872, a law that governs the mining of hardrock minerals, such as gold, silver, and copper, from our Federal lands.

When the Mining Law was enacted in 1872, in the aftermath of the California gold rush, Congress sought to encourage settlement of the West. Congress did this by offering free minerals and land to those who were willing to go West and mine. Congress put in place a system whereby miners could enter the public lands and locate claims for valuable mineral deposits, and mine the minerals with no further payment to the government. In the 1872 law, Congress also provided that the Federal Government would patent, or transfer title in fee simple, to the mining claims on the public domain for $2.50 or $5.00 an acre.

In 1920, Congress enacted the Mineral Leasing Act, and removed oil, gas, coal, and certain other minerals from the operation of the Mining Law. In so doing, Congress enacted a management regime that requires the leasing of these minerals. In addition, Congress required payment of per-acre rentals and ad valorem royalties based on the value of production of the oil, gas and coal, providing a return to the public for the production of publicly-owned resources.

However, as we all know, the Mining Law of 1872 continues to govern the disposition of hardrock minerals from Federal lands. While Congress has stepped in and prevented the patenting of lands through annual appropriations riders, patenting provisions allowing the transfer of mineralized Federal lands for $2.50 or $5.00 per acre are still on the books. In addition, to this day under the Mining Law, billions of dollars of hardrock minerals can be mined from Federal lands without payment of a royalty. General land management and environmental laws apply, but there are no specific statutory provisions under the Mining Law setting surface management or environmental standards.

Efforts to comprehensively reform the Mining Law have been ongoing literally for decades, but results have thus far been elusive. Congress came close to enacting comprehensive reform in 1994, and Congress has enacted moratoria on patent issuance and has imposed claim maintenance fees through the appropriations process. The House passed reform legislation last Congress and several of us in the Senate had discussions regarding how we could address this issue.

There is a growing number of people saying that finally this Congress may be the time to achieve this long-awaited reform. Chairman Rahall, a champion of reform in the House of Representatives, has again introduced mining reform legislation. The bill that I introduce today differs in many significant ways from the House legislation, and builds on discussions in the Senate last Congress. My bill, like other reform proposals, reflects a view that the law needs to be amended to ensure that the public gets a fair return for its resources, that environmental and land use requirements are modernized, and that certainty is provided to the mining industry.

I note that my bill includes a range for both the royalty rate and the reclamation fee which will be set by the Secretary through a rulemaking process. This ensures that the Secretary will have the benefit of comments and information from interested parties and the public in setting the royalty and fee. We must look comprehensively at the subject of royalties and fees to ensure that we continue to maintain a healthy domestic hardrock mining industry with the benefits that the nation derives from that industry, including jobs and strategic minerals. At the same time, we want to ensure that the public gets the fair return on these resources that the American people deserve. I hope to receive additional input on this issue of royalties and fees during consideration of the bill.

Another part of this legislation warrants special attention--that is the provisions relating to abandoned hardrock mine reclamation. While estimates vary, a recent survey of States indicated that there are as many as 500,000 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide with most of these in the West. These abandoned mines pose serious public health and safety risks. They also degrade our environment and pose special threats to our most precious resource: water.

As we discuss the size and shape of legislation to reform the 1872 law, there appears to be substantial support for enacting a robust hardrock abandoned mine land program. My legislation would enact a reclamation fee to fund this effort. In 1977, Congress enacted a coal AML program as part of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act to address the serious problem of abandoned coal mines. This program was funded by a fee levied on coal production. We are overdue to enact a similar program to deal with abandoned hardrock mines.

Mr. President, the bill I introduce today reforms the Mining Law of 1872 in important ways. The key provisions of this bill are outlined.

The bill eliminates patenting of Federal lands, but grandfathers patent applications filed and meeting all requirements by September 30, 1994.

The bill makes modest increases in the annual claim maintenance fee, from $125 to $150, and claim location fee, from $30 to $50. The legislation requires the mine operator to pay a fee in exchange for the use of Federal land that is included within the mine permit area. The bill provides that fees collected are to be used for the administration of hardrock mining on Federal lands. Any excess funds are deposited into the Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund.

The bill provides that the production of all locatable minerals is subject to a royalty to be determined by the Secretary by regulation of not less than 2 percent and not more than 5 percent of the value of production, not including reasonable transportation, beneficiation, and processing costs. The royalty may vary based on the particular mineral concerned. No royalty will be collected from lands under permit that are producing in commercial quantities on the date of enactment. Royalty revenues will be deposited into the Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund.

The bill includes a provision for royalty reductions for all or part of a mining operation where the person conducting the mineral activities shows by clear and convincing evidence that without the reduction, production would not occur.

The bill states that permits are required for all mineral activities on Federal land except for ``casual use'' that ordinarily results in no or negligible disturbance. Mining permits are for a term of 30 years and so long thereafter as production occurs in commercial quantities. The operator must provide evidence of approved financial assurances sufficient to ensure completion of reclamation if performed by the Secretary concerned.

Financial assurances attributable to the cost of water treatment will not be released until the discharge has ceased for at least 5 years or the operator has met all applicable water quality standards for at least 5 years. The operator may be required to establish a trust fund or other long-term funding mechanism to provide financial assurances for long-term treatment of water or other long-term post-mining maintenance or monitoring requirements.

The Secretary of Agriculture must take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation in administering mineral activities on National Forest System land. The bill directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to jointly issue regulations.

The bill requires within 3 years a review of certain lands to determine whether they will be available for future mining claim location. The Governor of a state, Chairman of an Indian tribe, or appropriate local official may petition the Secretary to undertake a review of an area.

The bill establishes a program for the reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines in 14 western states. Creates a Hardrock Minerals Reclamation Fund comprised of hardrock royalties, fees, and donations. Each operator of a hardrock mining operation on Federal, state, tribal or private land, must pay a reclamation fee established by the Secretary of not less than 0.3 percent, and not more than 1.0 percent, of the value of the production of the hardrock minerals for deposit into the Fund. The bill provides grant programs for all states for hardrock reclamation projects and for public entities and nonprofit organizations for collaborative restoration projects to improve fish and wildlife habitat affected by past hardrock mining.

Reform of the Mining Law of 1872 is a matter that has come before the Congress repeatedly and that we simply must address. I ask that my colleagues

join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the School Day Factor Act of 2009.

This bill would encourage States to provide students with the time they need to master knowledge and skills they will need to succeed in the 21st century, and to provide teachers with sufficient time to deliver effective instruction.

Twenty-first century learners, and their teachers, are faced with educational demands that simply did not exist decades ago. Right now, our economy is struggling. But we have a plan to get it back on track by investing aggressively in scientific R&D, and the deployment of new technologies. If we are to maintain and increase our Nation's competitiveness in the global economy for decades to come, we must allow every child the opportunity for a quality 21st century education. Today's students need to master mathematics, science, and technology, language arts and social studies, and they must also have opportunities to study foreign languages, the arts, and physical education. No one of these subject areas should be sacrificed at the expense of another. But that is the choices that teachers and students are faced with in schools across the United States. Teachers are being asked to cover more material than before, without being given more time. Students are expected to master more material than students of decades ago, without being given more time. Meanwhile, researchers have demonstrated that reducing instructional time hinders learning. As summarized by the National Research Council, in its report on How People Learn, ``. . . significant learning takes major investments of time.''

How can a quality, well rounded education be achieved when the average school year in this country includes only 180 days--less than half the number of days in a calendar year? Children today are spending only 20 percent to 30 percent of their waking hours in school, even if they have a record of perfect attendance. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, by the time American students finish high school, they will have spent more time watching television than in the classroom.

In 1991, Congress established the National Education Commission on Time and Learning, an independent advisory group charged with studying the relationship between instructional time and student learning in American schools. Members of the commission visited schools in the U.S. and abroad, and interviewed teachers, administrators, parents, and students. The Commission concluded that students and teachers in American schools are ``prisoners of time,'' captives of an agrarian- based school calendar that robs them of the opportunity for a quality education. To quote from their report, ``we have been asking the impossible of our students--that they learn as much as their foreign peers while spending only half as much time in core academic subjects.'' I add that this means we have also been asking the impossible of our teachers--to deliver effective instruction, without sufficient time. Clearly, our school calendars have not moved forward along with our societal and technological advances.

The Commission's 1994 report was not the first to recommend lengthening the school year. In 1983, the Nation at Risk report recommended increasing the school day to 7 hours per day, and the school year to 200 to 220 days per year, as a means to strengthen our nation's grip on global competitiveness. Well, it has been 25 years since that report, and I believe the time has come to give students and teachers the time they need for a quality education.

The School Day Factor Act will support efforts to expand the school year, by coordinating school funding with the length of the school year, and by encouraging schools to add five days to their calendar each year, for the next 4 years. This bill introduces a variable, the ``School Day Factor,'' that will reflect the number of mandatory full days included in a state's school year, and it may be adjusted to reflect any increases in instructional hours per day. This variable will be added to existing Title I allocation formulas that determine education grants to States.

The existing funding allocation formulas would be essentially unchanged for States whose school calendars meet a base level number of days per school year. By raising the base level school year length by 5 school days per year, over a 4 year period, the average school year calendar would reach the target of 200 school days per year by 2014. Inclusion of the School Day Factor will result in higher grants to states with school years that exceed the base level number of school days per year, and smaller grants to states with school years that fall below the base level.

I believe that schools are not only ready for this change, but that they are setting the pace for this movement. Some States and school districts have

already taken the initiative to expand their school year by 20 days per year. In my own State of New Mexico, a State initiated pilot program to extend kindergarten by 20 to 25 days per year led to such positive outcomes that the program was recently extended to third grade. Requests to participate have increased, as more school districts understand the benefits afforded by expanding students' and teachers' educational time. The School Day Factor Act is an investment that will support the efforts to dramatically increase this participation rate such that the 200 day school year is the norm, not an expanded calendar.

Clearly, more time alone is not sufficient to insure quality learning. By including the School Day Factor Act in the reauthorization of ESEA, it will be paired with actions designed to enhance and support quality instruction delivered by highly qualified teachers. I hope that this legislation will be included in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Burr, Kennedy, Hatch and Murray to introduce the Achievement Through Technology and Innovation, ATTAIN, Act of 2009.

This bill would amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to rename part D, Achievement through Technology and Innovation, and reauthorize it through FY2014. I am very pleased that ATTAIN is supported by the Consortium for School Networking, International Society for Technology and Education, Software and Information Industry Association, State Educational Technology Directors Association, and many other education groups.

In 2002, Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act to close the achievement gap between low-income, underperforming students and their more affluent peers. Without a renewed dedication to the quality of programs used in our schools, this goal, as well as providing an excellent education for students, will be difficult to achieve. While there is no question that we have made progress in recent years in advancing educational opportunity, I remain concerned about the number of schools that are failing to meet the performance criteria set out in the No Child Left Behind Act.

The bill I am introducing represents a critical step forward in advancing learning technologies for millions of students across the country. Many schools lack the resources necessary for the 21st century classroom and to meet the needs and expectations of today's students. Furthermore, technology and e-learning in our schools are a must if we are to meet our Nation's science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education needs and to provide students with the skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century knowledge-based, global economy.

By authorizing the Enhancing Education Through Technology Act, EETT, as part of NCLB, Congress recognized that Federal leadership and investment is needed to serve as a catalyst for State and local education initiatives aimed at school innovation and improved student achievement. EETT has shown to be effective, particularly in my home State of New Mexico. As you know, many schools often do not have access to learning resources that enable their students to gain an academic background with the technological skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college or the modern workplace. Through EETT, programs such as the Online Teaching and Learning Opportunities Year 2, have become bright spots of opportunity in some of our Nation's most isolated communities and have brought technical training, professional development and advanced technology resources to teachers and students. Notwithstanding this record of success, it is critical that states such as New Mexico have the opportunity to further advance the use of learning technologies to deliver innovative instruction and curriculum.

To this end, the ATTAIN Act has three main objectives. First, to ensure that through technology every student has access to individualized, rigorous, and relevant learning to meet the goals of NCLB and to prepare all students for the 21st century. Second, to build upon and increase the use of evidence-based and innovative systemic school redesign that centers around technology. And finally, to provide meaningful professional development around technology that leads to changes in teaching and curriculum and improves student technology literacy.

The future of our students' success depends on the quality of their educational experience. I want to thank Senators Burr, Kennedy, Hatch, and Murray for their leadership and commitment to improving education in this country. They remain tireless advocates for our Nation's students, and I am pleased to be working with them on this legislation as we begin reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act.

This legislation is an integral step in advancing State and local learning technologies for millions of students across the country, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2009. This bill provides economic empowerment and educational opportunities for working families by helping bank the unbanked and increasing access to financial literacy opportunities. It will also encourage the use of mainstream financial institutions for working families that need small loans. I thank my cosponsors, Senators Schumer, Inouye, and Lieberman.

Too many Americans lack basic financial literacy. Americans of all ages and backgrounds face increasingly complex financial decisions as members of the nation's workforce, managers of their families' resources, and voting citizens. Many find these decisions confusing and frustrating because they lack the tools necessary that would enable them to make wise, personal choices about their finances.

Without a sufficient understanding of economics and personal finance, individuals will not be able to appropriately manage their finances, effectively evaluate credit opportunities, successfully invest for long-term financial goals in an increasingly complex marketplace, or be able to cope with difficult financial situations. Unfortunately, today too many working families are struggling as they are confronted with increases in energy and food costs or the loss of a job.

We must work toward improving education, consumer protections, and empowering individuals and families through economic and financial literacy in order to build stronger families, businesses, and communities. The bill that I am introducing today would help to educate, empower and protect consumers.

Millions of working families do not have a bank or credit union account. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, and send remittances. Many of the unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford to have their earnings diminished by reliance on these high-cost and often predatory financial services. Among those families who make up the bottom 20 percent of earners, one in four does not have a transaction account according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. Indeed, the unbanked are often among the most vulnerable. More than 15 percent of families headed by a single parent are unbanked. The unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses making it difficult for these individuals to better their finances.

My bill authorizes grants intended to help low- and moderate-income unbanked individuals establish bank or credit union accounts. Providing access to a bank or credit union account can empower families with tremendous financial opportunities. An account at a bank or credit union provides consumers with alternatives to rapid refund loans, check cashing services, and high cost remittances. In addition, bank and credit union accounts provide access to saving and borrowing services.

Low- and moderate-income individuals are often challenged with a number of barriers that limit their ability to open and maintain accounts. Regular checking accounts may be too costly for some consumers unable to maintain minimum balances or unable to afford monthly fees. Poor credit histories may also hinder their ability to open accounts. By providing Federal resources for product development, administration, outreach, and financial education, banks and credit unions will be better able to reach out and bank the unbanked.

The second grant program authorized by my legislation provides consumers with a lower cost, short term alternative to payday loans. More needs to be done to encourage mainstream financial service providers to develop affordable small loan products. My legislation will help support the development of affordable credit products at bank and credit unions. Working families would be better off by going to their credit unions and banks, mainstream financial services providers, than payday loan shops. Payday loans are cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loans often have triple digit interest rates that range from 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate. Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break.

There is a great need for working families to have access to affordable small loans. My legislation would encourage banks and credit unions to develop payday loan alternatives. Consumers who apply for these loans would be provided with financial literacy and educational opportunities. Loans extended to consumers under the grant would be subject to the annual percentage rate promulgated by the National Credit Union Administration's, Loan Interest Rates. Several credit unions have developed similar products.

I will work to enact this legislation so vital to empowering our citizens. In our current, modern, complex economy, not having a bank or credit union

account severely hinders the ability of families to improve their financial condition or help them navigate difficult financial circumstances. Instead of borrowing money from payday lenders at outrageous fees, we need to encourage people to utilize their credit unions and banks for affordable small loans. Banks and credit unions have the ability to make the lives of working families better by helping them save,

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create a program within the Department of Veterans Affairs for family caregivers. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Burr, the Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Tester, Senator Burns, and Senator Rockefeller, former Chairman of the Committee.

Some veterans returning from the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as previous conflicts, suffer from disabilities that prevent them from being fully independent. This is a sad fact of war. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to provide for several improvements in health care for veterans by supporting the family members who care for them.

The challenges faced by family caregivers are well known to us. We have been working on this issue for nearly two years. Provisions that then-Senator Clinton included in a health care omnibus bill reported by the Committee last Congress would have provided for pilot programs to serve caregivers. We have since learned much more about the role family members play in caring for injured veterans, and the needs of family caregivers. I think we are now beyond the scope of that original pilot program and I believe that a full-fledged permanent program is needed in VA.

First, it is well known that the involvement of family members in the provision of health care dramatically improves speed and success of recovery. This bill will give family members the resources needed to be involved in the care for their loved one. Second, many disabled veterans are not able to complete some tasks of daily living on their own, but do not require care in an institution. Allowing a veteran to remain in the home, while having family members meet the veteran's needs, will vastly improve quality of life for the veteran.

Caregivers, who are members of a veteran's family, often put their lives on hold in order to provide care for the injured or disabled veteran at home. In some instances, these caregivers are unable to maintain regular jobs because of the time consumed in providing sufficient care to the veteran. This has the compound effect of decreasing household income, and possibly preventing the caregiver from keeping health insurance. This legislation would help alleviate these problems so as to allow the caregiver to focus entirely on caring for the veteran.

This bill includes provisions for training and certifying family caregivers or personal care attendants. It would provide for mental health counseling, health care eligibility, a living stipend, and other critical services to support these caregivers. Additionally, this bill would make improvements to the services VA provides to family members who must travel to take the veteran to a VA facility to receive treatment.

I look forward to working with all of our colleagues to pass this much needed legislation. I especially thank Senators Burr and Rockefeller for cosponsoring this bill. I would also like to thank the dedicated members of the Wounded Warrior Project and Paralyzed Veterans of America for their tireless efforts in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend Senator Voinovich as we introduce the Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 to formalize Federal Executive Boards, FEBs, in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

President Kennedy issued a Directive in 1961 creating FEBs to allow the heads of Federal agencies outside of Washington, DC to come together to address local issues in their Federal communities. There are now 28 Boards in 20 States, including Hawaii. Because they have never been authorized in legislation, FEBs have no institutionalized structure; each has its own operating structure. Some have an executive director, while some have no permanent staff at all. They also do not receive specific appropriations. As a result, FEBs must cobble together voluntary funding from participating agencies.

The Office of Personnel Management oversees the mission and activities of FEBs. Part of FEBs' mission is to offer agencies outside of Washington, DC an opportunity to share information, collaborate to address shared concerns, discuss management and administrative challenges, and come together as a Federal community. Each Board sets its own specific priorities and activities based on local concerns and the leadership in a given area.

Additionally, FEBs' mission is to play a critical support role in coordinating emergency preparedness and response efforts for a given area. The Honolulu-Pacific Federal Executive Board regularly hosts and participates in preparedness exercises in Hawaii and the Pacific Rim. When the Interstate 35 West Bridge collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota on August 1, 2007, the Executive Director of the Minnesota FEB helped disseminate critical information to over 100 Federal agencies and coordinate with the State and local emergency response network. FEBs have shared information with each other to assist in preparing for large events as well. For example, the Boston FEB used their experience with the Democratic National Convention in 2004 to help the Denver and Minnesota FEBs prepare for the National Party Conventions in 2008.

At a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia on September 28, 2007, which I chaired, it was clear that FEBs lack of formal structure hinders their critical support role in emergency preparedness and response. At that hearing, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, testified that FEBs have no clear role in national emergency planning, no framework to operate, no accountability in performing their duties, and no funding to carry out their missions. Additionally, FEB Executive Directors from around the country testified about the frustrations of operating without stable funding or a clear structure.

Since the hearing, FEBs have been included in FEMA's National Response Framework, and OPM and FEMA have signed a memorandum of understanding, MOU, giving FEBs a formal role in emergency preparedness and response. The Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 would implement other recommendations made by GAO and the representatives from FEBs at the 2007 hearing. More specifically, the bill would formalize the role of Federal Executive Boards, which would include interagency collaboration and Federal agency emergency preparedness and response outside of Washington, DC; establish a process for establishing new FEBs; require OPM to establish performance standards for

FEBs; specify a funding formula, which OPM will administer, for FEBs based on the number of employees in a Federal agency in a given area; and authorize staffing levels for each FEB to have at least an Executive Director and one support staff member.

Eighty-five percent of the Federal workforce is employed outside of the Washington, DC area. We spend billions of dollars preparing the National Capital Region for emergencies, but we must focus more on Federal Government agency emergency preparedness and response outside of the Washington area. This legislation will address that pressing need. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to restore Clean Water Act protections for the same waters that were covered by the Act prior to two recent divisive U.S. Supreme Court decisions. I want to thank Senators Boxer, Cardin, Brown, Cantwell, Carper, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Merkley, Reed, Sanders, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me in introducing this important legislation.

For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply and agricultural and industrial uses, and available for wildlife and fish habitat has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental expectation of Government providing for its citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the environment.

We must remain committed to the Clean Water Act of 1972, and to that end, Congress must enact legislation. Every day that Congress fails to act, more and more rivers, streams, wetlands and other waters that have long

been protected by the Clean Water Act are being stripped of their Clean Water Act protections and being polluted or destroyed altogether. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 20,000 determinations have been made since the court decisions on whether specific water bodies are covered by the act. Congress should not delay action until protections are stripped from more water bodies throughout the country. The EPA estimates that the court decisions could ultimately impact over half the stream miles and 20 percent of wetlands in the lower 48 States. Lost protections for these waters means the drinking water sources for over 110 million Americans are in jeopardy of pollution.

The Clean Water Restoration Act must be enacted to restore historical protections, using a surgical fix that reaffirms protections for the same categories of waters identified in the over three-decade-old EPA regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States.''

This is a serious problem, demanding serious debate and action. If we do not act, we will be allowing the Clean Water Act to be rolled back. That would mean increased uncertainty, confusion, litigation, and permitting delays resulting from the court decisions and subsequent agency guidelines. It also would pose a very real threat to Clean Water Act protections for public water supplies, industrial and agriculture uses, fish and wildlife, and recreation.

I am pleased to lead the effort to protect the Clean Water Act in the Senate, and to have support from a range of interested parties, including former EPA Administrators from both Republican and Democratic administrations; governors; attorneys general; State agencies; professional societies and associations; labor and business professionals and unions; farming organizations; and over 400 hunting, fishing, recreational, and conservation organizations.

In response to suggestions I received last Congress, I made several revisions to the bill to make Congressional intent very clear.

My bill, the Clean Water Restoration Act, would continue to protect only those waters historically protected by the Clean Water Act prior to the Supreme Court decisions. This is the crux of my bill, Section 4. In 1972, Congress granted Clean Water Act protections to ``navigable waters'' and broadly defined those as ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas'', in stark contrast to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, which had only provided protections for the commercially navigable waters. Since the 1970s, EPA and Corps regulations, 40 CFR 122.2 and 33 CFR 328.3, have properly established the scope of ``waters of the United States'' to be protected, including all intrastate and interstate rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. My bill simply takes the longstanding, existing regulatory definition for ``waters of the United States'' and puts it into law, in lieu of defining ``navigable waters'' as ``waters of the United States,'' as the Act does now. This surgical fix is necessary because the Supreme Court used the word ``navigable'' to create a more narrow definition for ``waters of the United States'' than the definition used for over 30 years. The Court did not, however, limit protections more drastically to only ``navigable-in-fact'' and continuously flowing waters as some interests have called for. This might have been the law in 1899 when the Rivers and Harbors Act focused on commercial navigation, but it would be entirely inappropriate for the modern day clean water protections provided by the Clean Water Act of 1972.

My bill also asserts appropriate constitutional authority to protect the Nation's waters. Despite claims to the contrary, Congress has broad constitutional authority, including under the Commerce Clause, Property Clause, Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to enact laws protecting our nation's water quality. To prevent future courts from narrowly applying Congress's constitutional authority, my bill includes the phrase ``activities affecting those waters.''

My bill also maintains existing exemptions for farming, silviculture, ranching, and other activities, and leaves unchanged the activities that require a permit. The bill only ensures that the same types of waters covered before the Supreme Court decisions continue to be protected and does not affect the activities that require permits. In short, if you have not needed a permit for the last thirty-five years for an activity, you will not need one when this bill is enacted.

Importantly, in 1977, when the Act was modified, a significant compromise was reached to exempt farming, silviculture, and forestry activities from the Act. I stand by this understanding, and just to be sure, the Clean Water Restoration Act explicitly states that the Act's existing exemptions are maintained. As stated in the Act and left unchanged by my bill, agricultural activities are largely exempt from the Clean Water Act [the main permitting programs affecting agriculture address point-source discharge, Section 402, not non-point, and the dredging and filling of waters, Section 404. The following agricultural activities are exempt: normal farming activities (which casts a wide net for plowing, cultivating, harvesting, conservation practices, etc.), agriculture run-off/stormwater discharges, return flows from irrigation, maintenance and construction of farm roads, farm and stock ponds, and irrigation ditches, and maintenance of drainage ditches. There are additional EPA regulatory exemptions for prior converted cropland, and wastewater treatment systems, including treatment lagoons and ponds. Again, my bill does not affect these exemptions and the findings make Congressional intent very clear in this regard.

In short, my bill will allow those waters always protected by the Clean Water Act to continue to receive basic protections. I appreciate the depth and breadth of support for reaffirming the Clean Water Act of 1972 and importantly, rejecting efforts to roll back the law.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness.

I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of Southern Utah.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah and view firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the appropriate benchmark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah.

Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. Last Congress, a provision was air-dropped into a bill considered by the Senate--without having been considered by the House or the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that designated less than 45 percent of the wilderness quality lands included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act for Washington County, Utah. Furthermore, the public lands package omitted a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing omnibus parks legislation that contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.''

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hiking and sightseeing to hunting.

Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the U.S. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Bill Nelson, to introduce legislation that would curb a growing nuisance that millions of wireless customers experience on a daily basis-- unsolicited text messages or mobile spam.

Spam has long been loathed by email users around the world. It is for good reason--percent of all email sent worldwide is considered spam, which means close to 200 billion spam messages are sent every day. The vast majority of the spam sent on the Internet is done so illegally through the use of botnets, which are ``networks'' of hijacked or compromised computers. One botnet, Srizbi, which consists of more than 450,000 compromised PCs is able to send on average more than 60 billion spam messages per day. Many of these spam messages include viruses, malicious spyware, or are phishing attacks.

With more data functionality and improved user interfaces with wireless devices, it is expected that mobile spam will grow over the next several years. Those viruses and malware that are so prevalent on a user's computer could

and most likely will show up on their cell phones through m-spam. So a very significant threat to wireless users looms.

While the FCC and the FTC have adopted rules to prohibit sending unwanted commercial e-mail messages to wireless devices without prior permission, text messages are not covered by their rules so it is not having the desired effect of deterring distribution of mobile spam, let alone email spam. The m-SPAM Act would provide more government attention to this growing problem and makes modifications to existing law in order to improve efforts to restrain mobile spam--before it becomes more than an annoyance.

More text and voice spam are steadily invading handsets. Wireless users in the U.S. received more than 1.1 million spam text messages in 2007, up 38 percent from 2006. Mobile spam not only clutters a wireless user's inbox, but it also unduly increases the monthly wireless bill-- wireless subscribers typically are charged for sending and receiving text messages--sometimes as much as 20 cents per message.

Some telephone companies have been proactive in preventing spam-- wireless carriers already block up to 200 million unsolicited text messages per month, but many times the senders cannot be located and brought to justice without Government help. In May 2007, Verizon Wireless sued telemarketers that had inundated the company with more than 12 million mobile spam messages. The carrier was able to block most of them but the inundation still hit consumers with unwanted charges and the carrier with a congested network. So more can be done to prevent this aggravating practice and relieve consumers of having to resolve these charges on their bills. Even the wireless industry recently has urged government to do more to catch and prosecute spammers.

That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join Senator Bill Nelson and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to enhance the availability of information to the public concerning the programs funded pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 enacted in February. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Casey in introducing this bill.

In a recent meeting that I had with constituents from the Maine Municipal Association, several questions arose regarding application deadlines and when funding will be distributed under the act. Additionally, because there is no centralized location listing the opportunities available, some Mayors and First Selectmen had little idea of all the programs for which they may be eligible. Indeed, the officials spoke of finding out about various programs either through meetings or colleagues, and they noted that a regularly updated online database of catalogued programs would be extremely useful.

This modest bill would require that the administration's recovery.gov website be expanded so that States and localities can easily ascertain stimulus funds for which they may be eligible. Cities and towns could benefit greatly if they could use Recovery.gov to quickly learn about funding for which they may be eligible, application deadlines, and who to contact for more information. An enhanced website or ``clearinghouse'' would facilitate the timely distribution of economic stimulus funds and ensure that they will be used as quickly and efficiently as possible to help restore economic growth throughout the country.

I urge prompt consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, America's economy is continuing in recession. Companies that have been profitable for years are finding their balance sheets awash in red ink. The economic stimulus bill, the American Recover and Reinvestment Act or ``ARRA,'' helped some small companies with a provision that allows them to take losses from 2008 and carry them back for up to five years rather than carry them forward for up to 20 or back only two. This net operating loss, NOL, carryback provision gives formerly profitable companies the ability to get a quick infusion of cash by recouping taxes paid when they were profitable in the recent past.

The cash from a 5 year carryback of NOLs allows companies to keep employees on payroll, and stabilize operations during the most trying time businesses have faced in at least a generation. The House and Senate and the Obama Administration all acknowledged the importance of permitting NOL carrybacks during the debate on the economic stimulus with provisions that generally allowed any company to carryback losses incurred in 2008 and 2009. Unfortunately, the final agreement on that law did not contain the sweeping provision that is necessary to help as many companies as are in need of this tax relief.

Companies are permitted to take these losses against future income, for up to 20 years from now. However, that carryforward of losses does nothing to help companies weather the current recession in fact some of these companies might never be able to take these losses because they'll go out of business as a result of this recession. Permitting carryback of losses will help to prevent employees from being laid off today as a result of the credit crunch that continues to exacerbate the downward spiral of our economy. We can help lessen the credit crunch and increase cash flow in companies by permitting companies to carryback losses for 5 years.

Today I am honored to introduce the NOL Carryback Act with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus, and a distinguished group of colleagues from the Finance Committee. This bill mirrors the Senate-passed NOL carryback provision that was passed in ARRA. The Senate-passed bill allowed carrybacks for losses incurred in 2008 and 2009, for any sized business, but it prevented companies that receive cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program from also receiving this cash infusion.

Mr. President, I rise today in response to the devastating job losses resulting from the current economic crisis. Figures released this week show that U.S. companies shed more than 740,000 jobs in March, a 5 percent increase over the 706,000 jobs lost in February. Our country has now lost nearly 4.5 million jobs since the onset of the recession--the most since 1945. Tomorrow's release of government- compiled employment figures is certain to confirm the dismal state of the U.S. job market--a tragic reality that millions of hardworking Americans and the families they support know all too well.

As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I believe it is essential for the Department of Commerce to respond to this dire situation by focusing its efforts on expanding employment opportunities for Americans. With its statutory mission ``to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce,'' the Department of Commerce has a clear mandate to defend and grow the U.S. economy through job preservation and creation.

Yet the disparate agencies that comprise the department have little or no occasion to coordinate their efforts toward maximizing its job maintaining and creating potential. While divisions such as the Economic Development Agency and the Minority Business Development Agency each have their own programs to increase employment in their respective target communities, there is the potential for even greater job creation through the coordination

of their efforts with the core functions of other department components, such as the export-promotion activities of the International Trade Administration, the economic analysis of the Economics and Statistics Administration, and the stewardship of technological innovation by the National Telecommunications & Information Administration.

That is why I am today introducing bipartisan legislation with my Commerce Committee colleague Senator Begich to establish a Job Creation Coordinator at the department. Answering directly to the Secretary of Commerce, the Coordinator would not only ensure that each agency is carrying out its primary mission in a way that maximizes U.S. employment, but also would identify and implement opportunities to link separate programs being carried out by the agencies in a way that ensures that department resources are being spent in a manner which guarantees the utmost job creation per dollar appropriated.

Specifically, the Jobs Coordinator would be responsible for making an initial assessment of the private sector jobs currently being maintained or created by Commerce Department programs; formulating an action plan for improving these figures under existing statutory authority; liaising with Congress about additional authority which would enhance the job maintaining and creating abilities of Commerce Department programs; and, overseeing the implementation of new department policies or statutory authorities intended to enhance the department's job maintenance and creation potential.

The millions of Americans who have lost their livelihoods to the economic downturn, or whose jobs are at risk amidst the turmoil, deserve the utmost effort by their government to put an end to the lay- offs and get people back to work. I urge my colleagues to join me in this vital effort by supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to allow five Southeast Alaska communities to finally be allowed to form urban corporations under the terms of 1971's Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act.

At the very beginning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 there are a series of findings and declarations of congressional policy that explain the underpinnings of this landmark legislation.

The first clause reads, ``There is an immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, based on aboriginal land claims.'' The second clause states, ``The settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives.''

Mr. President, 37, going on 38, years have passed since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act became law and still the Native peoples of five communities in Southeast Alaska--Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Tenakee and Haines--the five ``landless communities'' are still waiting for their fair and just settlement.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act awarded $966 million and 44 million acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage such funds and lands. The beneficiaries of the settlement were issued stock in one of 13 regional Alaska Native corporations--12 based in Alaska. Most beneficiaries also had the option to enroll and receive stock in a village, group or urban corporation.

For reasons that still defy clear explanation the Native peoples of the ``landless communities,'' were not permitted by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to form village or urban corporations. These communities were excluded from this benefit even though they did not differ significantly from other communities in Southeast Alaska that were permitted to form village or urban corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. For example, Ketchikan had more Native residents in 1970, the year of a member census, than Juneau, which was permitted to form the Goldbelt urban corporation. This finding was confirmed in a February 1994 report submitted by the Secretary of the Interior at the direction of the Congress. That study was conducted by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska.

The Native people of Southeast Alaska have recognized the injustice of this oversight for more than 34 years. An independent study issued more than 12 years ago confirms that the grievance of the landless communities is legitimate. Legislation has been introduced in the past sessions of Congress to remedy this injustice. Hearings have been held and reports written. Yet legislation to right the wrong has inevitably stalled out. This December marks the 38th anniversary of Congress' promise to the Native peoples of Alaska, the promise of a rapid and certain settlement. And still the landless communities of Southeast Alaska are landless.

I am convinced that this cause is just, it is right, and it is about time that the Native peoples of the five landless communities receive what has been denied them for so long.

The legislation that I am introducing today would enable the Native peoples of the five ``landless communities'' to organize five ``urban corporations,'' one for each unrecognized community. These newly formed corporations would be offered and could accept the surface estate to 23,040 acres of land--one township as granted all other village corporations. Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska, would receive title to the subsurface estate to the designated lands. The urban corporations would each receive a lump sum payment to be used as start-up funds for the newly established corporation. The Secretary of the Interior would determine other appropriate compensation to redress the inequities faced by the unrecognized communities.

It is long past time that we return to the Native peoples of Southeast Alaska a small slice of the aboriginal lands that were once theirs alone. It is time that we open our minds and open our hearts to correcting this injustice that has gone on far too long and finally give the Native peoples of Southeast Alaska the rapid and certain settlement for which they have been waiting.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill that I have introduced, the Southeast Alaska Timber Industry Retooling and Restructuring Act, which is intended to stimulate employment in Southeast Alaska, by helping firms that have focused on the region's timber industry to modernize or branch out into new industries.

In 1954, the US Department of Agriculture encouraged the development of a sawmill and pulp mill timber industry in the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska, which at 16.98 million acres is the largest national forest in America. From the startup of the pulp mills in Ketchikan and in Sitka in 1961 to passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, the Tongass was producing about 600 million board feet of timber a year, generating 3,500 direct and 2,500 indirect jobs and providing the largest number of year-round jobs in the region.

But following passage of ANILCA that created 14 wilderness areas covering about 4.9 million acres and the follow up Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 that placed another 727,762 acres into protected non-roaded status and created another 12 wilderness areas containing 300,000 acres, the timber harvest and thus timber industry-related employment plummeted in the region--an area nearly the size of Maine. While the two pulp mills closed in the mid 1990's, sawmills have tried to survive on the then anticipated 268 mmbf of allowable timber harvest. But a litany of Federal forest policy changes from the Clinton-era roadless policy, to changes in Forest Service sale and road policies, to sale delays caused by litigation have resulted in harvest levels falling to 28 million board feet from Federal lands and less than 50 million from private lands in 2008. That harvest level is far below the 192 mmbf reached in 2006 and about half of the 144 mmbf of 2007. Recent years have been drastically down from the 495 million board feet harvested from all lands as recently as 1997.

Year round timber employment, according to U.S. Forest Service in 2007, the last year of current full data, was 402 jobs, just 13 percent of the employment of a decade earlier. The impacts on the region's economy have been clearly documented. According to a report by The McDowell Group consultants, total timber-related payroll in 2007 hit just $17 million, compared to $300 million in 1990. Currently, according to the State of Alaska, unemployment in December 2008 has reached 16.5 percent on Prince of Wales Island, the resource base for traditional southern timber operations, and 24.6 percent in the Hoonah and Angoon area, the former resource base for central timber

operations--three times the rising national average.

This bill is a measure that calls on the Federal Government to finally acknowledge its role in the reduction of economic activity in the region. By the act, the Government would on a one-time basis, allow the Secretary of Agriculture to provide grants to allow existing timber facilities to retool either to adopt new timber production practices that can operate profitably on far smaller harvests or to convert timber plants to totally new types of manufacturing/business operations, leaving timber-dependent work. Firms--sawmills, logging companies and road construction companies involved in timber work for at least a decade--that seek funding for ``retooling projects'' must submit business plans and demonstrate the likelihood of success. More importantly they must commit to the ``extent practicable'' to continue to employ substantially the same number of employees for a ``reasonable'' period after completion of a retooling project. To limit the impact of the aid, grants may only go to businesses hat operated in the Tongass for not less than 10 years prior to Jan. 1, 2009. The program sunsets within 2 years with the maximum authorization of aid being $40 million subject to appropriation.

The bill would allow companies that used to build Forest Service timber roads, for example, to buy more appropriate equipment to bid on Federal highway work and water and sewer line work. It could help firms move into sand and gravel operations. It could allow sawmills with water access to be converted to marine repair facilities or into wood treatment plants. And it might allow some mills to convert to higher value-added products requiring less raw materials, like door and window sash manufacturing.

The changes would ease environmental pressures on timber stands, while aiding the economy by helping to replace the former year-round jobs in a region now nearly solely dependent on fishing and tourism income, besides government-sector spending, for employment. In a region where non-government jobs are precious, it could stimulate job retention and help create new employment. At a time when Congress is contemplating spending nearly $1 trillion to stimulate employment, this measure is a reasonable expenditure to help potentially transition employees to 21st century jobs. The Federal Government was the leading advocate for the establishment of a pulp-timber industry in the region following World War II. It is more than fitting that it provide more assistance to help the region transition to a new era of reduced timber harvests--an era prompted by major environmental legislation that this Congress passed in 1980 and 1990 that is largely responsible for the sharp drop in timber harvests. I hope this body will give fair and swift consideration to this measure.