Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act

Mr. President, today, in honor of the 20th anniversary of International Migratory Bird Day on May 11, I am introducing the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. More than half of the bird species found in the U.S. migrate across our borders

and many of these spend our winter in Central and South America. This bill promotes international cooperation for long-term conservation, education, research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species of neotropical migratory birds. Through its successful competitive, matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports public-private partnerships in countries mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. Up to one quarter of the funds may be awarded for domestic projects.

This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by consuming billions of harmful insect and rodent pests each year, providing pollination services, and dispersing seeds. Migratory birds face threats from pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and invasive species that degrade their habitats in addition to the natural risks of their extended flights. Birds are excellent indicators of the health of an ecosystem. As such, it is troubling that, according to the National Audubon Society, half of all coastally migrating shorebirds, like the Common Tern and Piping Plover, are experiencing dramatic population declines.

The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of Maryland and one whose song brightens all of the Northeastern U.S., has steadily declined in population despite being protected by Federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the state of Maryland's Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Likewise, the iconic Red Knot bird, whose legendary 9,000 mile migration centers on a stopover in the Mid-Atlantic states, is decreasing in population quickly. Threats to these beloved Maryland birds are mainly due to habitat destruction and deforestation, particularly in the Central and South American countries where the birds winter. In addition, international use of toxic pesticides ingested by insects, which are then eaten by the birds, has significantly contributed to this decline. Conservation efforts in our country are essential, but investment in programs throughout the migratory route of these and countless other migratory birds is critical. This legislation accomplishes this goal.

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. To date, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has administered these grants to support 422 projects in more than 35 countries. The $46.5 million that this program has provided in grants has leveraged $178.5 million from partners, almost four additional dollars for every one spent. More than 3.25 million acres of quality bird habitat have benefitted. In addition, birding is among the wildlife watching activities that generate jobs and income, approximately $2.7 billion annually, for the U.S. economy.

This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a highly successful federal program. This simple reauthorization bill will make sure that this good work continues.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Resources Research Amendments Act. First authorized in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act established 54 Water Resources Research Institutes at top land grant universities in each of the 50 States and the U.S. territories. These institutes created a grant program and provided opportunities for applied water supply research. The bill I introduce today would reauthorize the grant program for the next 5 years and would add a program focused on research and development of green infrastructure.

Water and the availability thereof is a defining characteristic of U.S. landscape, culture, wealth, and security. Clean water is a relatively rare and invaluable resource. Last year's funded projects included research into the impacts of climate change on water supply lakes, the development of better detection methods for pathogens in drinking water, and the impacts of drought on farm supply chains. In my own State, some of the tools we use for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay were products of these same grants in previous years. WRRA Researchers across the Mid-Atlantic States have developed ways to keep the Chesapeake waters cleaner through urban stormwater treatment, improved roadway design, and eco-friendly poultry farming practices. WRRA-funded projects develop innovative and cost-effective solutions for similar water resources issues across the country. Undoubtedly, funding WRRA is an intelligent and necessary investment in the future of our water resources.

WRRA authorizes two types of annual grants. First, it supplies grants to each Water Resources Research Institute for research that fosters improvements in water supply reliability, explores new ways to address water problems, encourages dissemination of research to water managers and the public, and encourages the entry of new scientists, engineers and technicians into the water resources field. Second, WRRA authorizes a national competitive grant program to address regional water issues. All WRRA grants leverage non-federal dollars at a minimum ratio of 2 to 1, but often far beyond that level, as high as 5 to 1.

The Water Resources Research Act was most recently reauthorized in 2006, in PL 109-471. In that period, the program was authorized at $12,000,000 per year, providing $6,000,000 each to state and competitive project grants. Authorization for these grants expired in fiscal year 2011. Today's bill would reauthorize both grant programs for an additional 5 years by providing $7,500,000 for institutional grants and $1,500,000 for national competitive grants. This lower authorization level reflects our efforts to adjust for present fiscal limitations. The proposed authorization maximizes the economic efficiency of the program without compromising its efficacy. An independent review panel has judged that the Water Resources Research Institutes command significant funding leverage for the modest amount of appropriations required to support it. Thus, we can be sure that we are supporting top-notch science while maximizing cost-effectiveness. Moreover, by funding this network of institutes we are investing in our future. The Water Resources Research Institutes are the country's single largest training program for water scientists, technicians, and engineers.

Today, floods, droughts, and water degradation issues pervade the nation. Simultaneously, water resources are increasingly critical for production of resources, economic stability, and the health and well- being of the citizenry. WRRA grants provide us with improved understanding of water-related issues and better technology to address them. Nearly half a century after the Water Resources Research grant program was first put in place, this program is relevant, critical, and deserving of our support.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act with my colleague Senator Crapo. This legislation would end the legal uncertainty facing the timber industry by enacting legislation to preserve the Environmental Protection Agency's 37-year old policy treating forest roads as non- point sources under the Clean Water Act.

For 37 years, the EPA has maintained that forest roads are non-point sources. Furthermore, in March of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on forest roads, upholding EPA's authority to regulate forest roads as nonpoint sources under the Clean Water Act. Various studies show that if the EPA were to change their decades-long position and require Federal, State, county, tribal and private forest road owners to obtain a point source permit, the cost could reach billions of dollars and cost thousands of jobs. The Pacific Northwest needs more jobs in the woods. The way to do that is to get the timber cut up and to stop litigating questions that have already been answered.

In the 112th Congress, Senator Crapo and I introduced similar legislation on forest roads. The legislation we introduce today is different in only two respects. First, the bill includes new language to prevent forest roads from being otherwise regulated by the EPA. This language is needed because in its March 2013 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the EPA's authority to regulate forest roads as non-point sources, and therefore not require mandatory point source permits; however, it did not address the Ninth Circuit's previous ruling that forest roads are point sources. As a result, the EPA must respond to the Court's ruling that the EPA use its discretionary authority to determine whether or not to regulate forest roads as point sources. This will inevitably result in further litigation over permits for forest roads.

Second, the bill we introduce today includes the language adopted last year by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to clarify the list of forest activities the EPA will not regulate as point sources. The Committee favorable reported the bill with this addition.

Let me be clear. This legislation upholds an existing EPA regulation. Furthermore, this legislation does not weaken the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act remains in the same force as it has since it was enacted in 1972.

The introduction of this bill begins the legislative process. There will be an opportunity for hearings, testimony provided by witnesses and Federal agencies, and public dialogue on this bill. It is my hope that this legislation will provide the certainty that the timber industry needs to increase jobs in the woods, get the timber cut up, and put an end to litigating the question of whether or not EPA has the authority to regulate forest roads as non-point sources.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act with my colleague Senator Crapo. This legislation would end the legal uncertainty facing the timber industry by enacting legislation to preserve the Environmental Protection Agency's 37-year old policy treating forest roads as non- point sources under the Clean Water Act.

For 37 years, the EPA has maintained that forest roads are non-point sources. Furthermore, in March of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on forest roads, upholding EPA's authority to regulate forest roads as nonpoint sources under the Clean Water Act. Various studies show that if the EPA were to change their decades-long position and require Federal, State, county, tribal and private forest road owners to obtain a point source permit, the cost could reach billions of dollars and cost thousands of jobs. The Pacific Northwest needs more jobs in the woods. The way to do that is to get the timber cut up and to stop litigating questions that have already been answered.

In the 112th Congress, Senator Crapo and I introduced similar legislation on forest roads. The legislation we introduce today is different in only two respects. First, the bill includes new language to prevent forest roads from being otherwise regulated by the EPA. This language is needed because in its March 2013 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the EPA's authority to regulate forest roads as non-point sources, and therefore not require mandatory point source permits; however, it did not address the Ninth Circuit's previous ruling that forest roads are point sources. As a result, the EPA must respond to the Court's ruling that the EPA use its discretionary authority to determine whether or not to regulate forest roads as point sources. This will inevitably result in further litigation over permits for forest roads.

Second, the bill we introduce today includes the language adopted last year by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to clarify the list of forest activities the EPA will not regulate as point sources. The Committee favorable reported the bill with this addition.

Let me be clear. This legislation upholds an existing EPA regulation. Furthermore, this legislation does not weaken the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act remains in the same force as it has since it was enacted in 1972.

The introduction of this bill begins the legislative process. There will be an opportunity for hearings, testimony provided by witnesses and Federal agencies, and public dialogue on this bill. It is my hope that this legislation will provide the certainty that the timber industry needs to increase jobs in the woods, get the timber cut up, and put an end to litigating the question of whether or not EPA has the authority to regulate forest roads as non-point sources.

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

Mr. President, I rise at this moment, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, outraged at the implication that we in the Senate have not done enough to investigate what has happened in Benghazi; that we have not investigated it thoroughly; that we have not looked at the details, have not analyzed the information-- classified and unclassified--that has come before us.

The committee has held four hearings--four--on the attack on Special Mission Benghazi. The very first hearing I chaired in January was on this topic with Secretary Clinton. In fact, we postponed the nomination hearing of Senator Kerry so that Secretary Clinton could come before us and explain what happened and why, despite her medical condition at the time.

Let's make that very clear. One of the very first things we did, despite a pending nomination of a new Secretary, and the sitting Secretary's medical concerns, was to hold a hearing on this topic and air the facts. Prior to that, Chairman Kerry held a hearing of the committee on December 20 on the events that transpired in Benghazi with Deputy Secretaries Burns and Nides. There were also two classified briefings in December specifically on the circumstances surrounding the attack. The December 13 briefing included a video of the attack with high level officials from State, the Joint Staff, Defense Department, the FBI, and the intelligence community. They included Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management at State; Matthew Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; Maj. Gen. Darryl Roberson, Vice Director of Operations at the Joint Staff; Gary Reid, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; Jenny Ley, Deputy Assistant Director at the

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