Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act of 2011. This is a bill intended to reform the management of energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, and to create a culture of excellence for the industry and the regulatory agency going forward.

Following the tragic Deepwater Horizon oil rig accident last year, we have learned a lot about changes that need to be made by the industry and the regulatory agency to ensure that accidents like this never happen again. In addition, we should do more, and create a system for the management of offshore energy development that is a model for the world.

This bill is intended to put in place the changes that can achieve these goals. It is identical to a bill reported unanimously by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the last Congress. In the intervening time since the committee's action, there have been developments and new information that may indicate the need to update or change some parts of the bill. But, as we begin to work on this issue again in the committee, I believe that it is sensible to start with last year's bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address these important issues.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill important to public health and safety and the environment. This legislation addresses an interpretation by the Department of the Interior, DOI, which restricts the ability of states to use certain funds under the Abandoned Mine Land, AML, Program authorized by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA, for non-coal abandoned mine reclamation and for the remediation of acid mine drainage. This bill is identical to legislation that was reported by voice vote by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources last Congress.

Amendments to SMCRA, passed as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, reauthorized collection of an AML fee on coal produced in the United States and made certain modifications to the AML program. The amendments also provided that so-called ``make- up'' funds, amounts that had accrued to the states and tribes for several years under the formula in SMCRA but had not been previously appropriated, be paid out to the states and tribes over a period of years as mandatory payments.

Under the AML program, which is administered by DOI, funds are expended to reclaim abandoned mine lands, with top priority for protecting public health, safety, general welfare, and property, and restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past mining practices. The program is largely directed to abandoned coal mine reclamation, but beginning in 1977 when SMCRA was first enacted, funds have been available pursuant to section 409 to address abandoned non-coal mine sites. A review of the legislative history of this provision and the long-standing administrative interpretation of section 409 reveals that the section is intended to address ``non-coal mine reclamation'' on abandoned mine lands.

Western states such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah have prioritized the use of AML funds to undertake the most pressing reclamation work on both abandoned coal and non-coal mine sites. While activities on non-coal mine sites have consumed a relatively insignificant portion of the funding provided for the overall AML program, the results in terms of public health and safety in these states is considerable, and there is significant work yet to be done.

Similarly, the use of AML funds for remediation of acid mine drainage has been important in many areas, especially in the Appalachian states, such as Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Until enactment of the 2006 amendments to SMCRA, states and tribes with approved AML programs had been able to set aside up to 30 percent of their AML funds for acid mine drainage remediation without respect to time limitations that would otherwise apply.

In 2007, the Solicitor at the Department of the Interior interpreted the amendments as limiting the ability of uncertified states and tribes to use the ``make-up'' AML funds for priority non-coal abandoned mine reclamation and acid mine drainage set-aside programs. See Memorandum Opinion M-37014. The Solicitor found that these make-up funds cannot be used for priority non-coal mine reclamation in the case of states and tribes that had not certified completion of their coal reclamation work and likewise cannot be used for acid mine drainage set-aside programs.

The bill that I am introducing today would correct what I believe is an unfortunate and unintended interpretation of the 2006 amendments by modifying the language of SMCRA to clarify that the funding would be available for non-coal abandoned mine reclamation and acid mine drainage set-aside programs as it was prior to the passage of the amendments in 2006.

I want to underscore that the bill does not increase funding to the states and tribes. It simply clarifies that states and tribes can have flexibility to use AML funds that they receive under existing law for these two important uses, as was the case prior to the 2006 amendments. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, which has important implications nationwide.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill important to public health and safety and the environment. This legislation addresses an interpretation by the Department of the Interior, DOI, which restricts the ability of states to use certain funds under the Abandoned Mine Land, AML, Program authorized by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, SMCRA, for non-coal abandoned mine reclamation and for the remediation of acid mine drainage. This bill is identical to legislation that was reported by voice vote by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources last Congress.

Amendments to SMCRA, passed as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, reauthorized collection of an AML fee on coal produced in the United States and made certain modifications to the AML program. The amendments also provided that so-called ``make- up'' funds, amounts that had accrued to the states and tribes for several years under the formula in SMCRA but had not been previously appropriated, be paid out to the states and tribes over a period of years as mandatory payments.

Under the AML program, which is administered by DOI, funds are expended to reclaim abandoned mine lands, with top priority for protecting public health, safety, general welfare, and property, and restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past mining practices. The program is largely directed to abandoned coal mine reclamation, but beginning in 1977 when SMCRA was first enacted, funds have been available pursuant to section 409 to address abandoned non-coal mine sites. A review of the legislative history of this provision and the long-standing administrative interpretation of section 409 reveals that the section is intended to address ``non-coal mine reclamation'' on abandoned mine lands.

Western states such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah have prioritized the use of AML funds to undertake the most pressing reclamation work on both abandoned coal and non-coal mine sites. While activities on non-coal mine sites have consumed a relatively insignificant portion of the funding provided for the overall AML program, the results in terms of public health and safety in these states is considerable, and there is significant work yet to be done.

Similarly, the use of AML funds for remediation of acid mine drainage has been important in many areas, especially in the Appalachian states, such as Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Until enactment of the 2006 amendments to SMCRA, states and tribes with approved AML programs had been able to set aside up to 30 percent of their AML funds for acid mine drainage remediation without respect to time limitations that would otherwise apply.

In 2007, the Solicitor at the Department of the Interior interpreted the amendments as limiting the ability of uncertified states and tribes to use the ``make-up'' AML funds for priority non-coal abandoned mine reclamation and acid mine drainage set-aside programs. See Memorandum Opinion M-37014. The Solicitor found that these make-up funds cannot be used for priority non-coal mine reclamation in the case of states and tribes that had not certified completion of their coal reclamation work and likewise cannot be used for acid mine drainage set-aside programs.

The bill that I am introducing today would correct what I believe is an unfortunate and unintended interpretation of the 2006 amendments by modifying the language of SMCRA to clarify that the funding would be available for non-coal abandoned mine reclamation and acid mine drainage set-aside programs as it was prior to the passage of the amendments in 2006.

I want to underscore that the bill does not increase funding to the states and tribes. It simply clarifies that states and tribes can have flexibility to use AML funds that they receive under existing law for these two important uses, as was the case prior to the 2006 amendments. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, which has important implications nationwide.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 18, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 220, to provide for the restoration of forest landscapes, protection of old growth forests, and management of national forests in the eastside forests of the State of Oregon;

S. 270, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to Deschutes County, Oregon;

S. 271, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a property conveyance with the city of Wallowa, Oregon, and for other purposes;

S. 278, to provide for the exchange of certain land located in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes;

S. 292, to resolve the claims of the Bering Straits Native Corporation and the State of Alaska to land adjacent to Salmon Lake in the State of Alaska and to provide for the conveyance to the Bering Straits Native Corporation of certain other public land in partial satisfaction of the land entitlement of the Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act;

S. 322, to expand the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in the State of Washington, to designate the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River and Pratt River as wild and scenic rivers, and for other purposes;

S. 382, to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture regarding additional recreational uses of National Forest System land that is subject to ski area permits, and for other purposes;

S. 427, to withdraw certain land located in Clark County, Nevada, from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral materials, and for other purposes;

S. 526, to provide for the conveyance of certain Bureau of Land Management land in Mohave County, Arizona, to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, for use as a public shooting range;

S. 566, to provide for the establishment of the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System;

S. 590, to convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to give that territory the same benefits in its submerged lands as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have in their submerged lands;

S. 607, to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as wilderness, to provide for the exchange of certain Federal land and non-Federal land, and for other purposes;

S. 617, to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to Elko County, Nevada, and to take land into trust for the Te-moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada, and for other purposes;

S. 683, to provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Mantua, Utah;

S. 684, to provide for the conveyance of certain parcels of land to the town of Alta, Utah;

S. 667, to establish the Rio Grande del Norte National Conservation Area in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes;

S. 729, to validate final patent number 27-2005-0081, and for other purposes;

S. 766, to provide for the designation of the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Area in the State of Oregon, to designate segments of Wasson and Franklin Creeks in the State of Oregon as wild rivers, and for other purposes;

S. 896, to amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to expand the authorization of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior to provide service opportunities for young Americans; help restore the nation's natural, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational and scenic resources; train a new generation of public land managers and enthusiasts; and promote the value of public service; and

S. 897, to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Allison Seyferth.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 25, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 233, to withdraw certain Federal land and interests in that land from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws;

S. 375, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with State foresters authorizing State foresters to provide certain forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration and protection services;

S. 714, to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, and for other purposes; and

S. 730, to provide for the settlement of certain claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Allison Seyferth.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, the country faces two large economic challenges. The first is growing our economy, creating jobs, getting the economy back on track. The second major challenge is cutting the deficit. I wish to briefly talk about both of those.

I have four charts--one that relates to jobs and growing the economy and three that deal more specifically with the deficit.

Unfortunately, in Washington, the debate has shifted almost entirely to a discussion of the deficit. Too many people in Washington are pretending our efforts to generate growth in the economy have been accomplished, that it is a done deal, that we have recovered from the recession, and we can now focus full time on how to cut the deficit.

The fact is, this is simply not true. Professor Alan Blinder, an economist at Princeton and former Deputy Chair of the Federal Reserve, testified before the Senate Finance Committee a couple weeks ago. He made the following statement:

The economic recovery is mediocre at best and unemployment

remains high. To me, those conditions describe a bad time to

put the economy on a diet of either spending cuts or tax

increases.

Let me point to the first chart to underscore the point professor Blinder made. The recession we have just gone through created a very deep hole. If you look at the number of private sector jobs that were lost between November of 2007 and the end of March of 2010, you can see--it is February of 2010--8.8 million jobs were lost as a result of the recession. While things are getting better, it is clear they have not gotten better enough. We have now created 1.8 million new jobs since we began adding private sector jobs. So we still have a shortfall of about 7 million jobs that need to be created in order to get back to where we were in November of 2007. Of course, there have been a lot of new people who came into the job market since then, so we need to create more jobs than that.

We are encountering some strong headwinds in our effort to dig out of the recession. The strongest headwind is the high price of oil and gas, which is a tax on consumers, a tax on our businesses, and it comes at a very bad time. We are all looking for ways to try to deal with that. Frankly, it is difficult to legislate a solution.

Another headwind is one of our own creation; that is, the constant drumbeat we hear to cut spending at all levels of government--cut it in Washington, cut it at the State level, cut it at the local level. My own strong view is we should heed Professor Blinder's advice. We need to continue to work to keep investing in those things that will help us create good-paying jobs. Timing is important. We clearly need to reduce the deficit, but we should adopt policies this year that will put us on a long-term path to reduce the deficit. I hope these policies will delay major cuts in spending and major increases in taxes, until we can come out of this recession some additional distance.

Let me talk about the deficits, the second challenge I talked about before. We have a chart called ``Federal Revenues and Outlays as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product.'' This is for a 40-year period, from 1970 to 2010. It is a chart the Congressional Budget Office prepared and presented to us.

Clearly, there are some important points you can take away from this chart. No. 1, on average, over the last 40 years, the Federal Government has accounted for 20.7 percent of gross domestic product-- spending by the Federal Government--on average. Over that same period, on average, we have raised 18.1 percent of GDP in the form of revenues. So, on average, we have been running a deficit of about 3 percent of GDP each year during this 40-year period. Today, that 3 percent of GDP is about $450 billion.

The one time during this 40 years when we achieved a balanced budget--and even ran a surplus for a 4-year period--was at the end of the 1990s and in the year 2000. How did we manage to do that? Well, beginning in 1990, the Congress passed, and President George H.W. Bush signed, a bill that both restrained spending and raised taxes. Again, in 1993 and again in 1997, Congress passed and, in that case, President Clinton signed, budget plans that

did even more to do what had been done in 1990; that is, both of those plans restrained spending and raised revenues.

We enjoyed a strong economy during those years in question and that, of course, helped to bring more revenue into the government and get us to a balanced budget and a surplus.

What went wrong that caused us to, once again, fall into deficit? I will cite three factors:

First, the tax cuts Congress enacted in the last decade. Beginning in 2001 and then again in 2003, Congress passed what have come to be known as the Bush tax cuts. These fairly drastically reduced the revenue coming to the Federal Government. At the same time we were cutting taxes, we ramped up Federal spending, primarily for defense, and that is a result of the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war. The estimate there is that something like $1.3 trillion has gone into those efforts. In addition to defense, we ramped up spending on health care primarily by including a prescription drug benefit in Medicare. All of that increased spending occurred without any increase in revenues to pay for it. I repeat that none of this spending was offset with increased revenues.

The third factor, of course, that has brought us into the very serious deficit we now face is the slowdown of economic activity. This contributed substantially to increased expenses for the government and some of the entitlement programs--Medicaid, food stamps, and a variety of them--but also the decreased revenues. When people are earning less money, they pay less in taxes and less revenue comes to the government to pay for those services that the government is providing.

The deficit, of course, has worsened substantially in the last 2 years because of, first, reduced Federal taxes being collected, largely a result of the recession; second, increased Federal spending--both because there is more demand for government services as a result of the recession and also because we passed the Recovery Act to stimulate the economy. I think most economists would conclude it has helped stimulate the economy.

The Pew fiscal analysis initiative analyzed the policies and legislation that have caused the surpluses of the late 1990s to become the deficits we see today. They produced a list showing their conclusions. That list is on this chart. We can see these are in the order of importance, the order in which they contributed to the current deficit situation.

The top two drivers on this list are the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--they account for about 13 percent of what we face today in deficits--and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which account for about 10 percent of what we face.

All told, tax cuts caused 21 percent of deficits since 2001; increased defense spending caused 15 percent of deficits. Two-thirds of that was due to Iraq and Afghanistan. Increased nondefense spending caused 10 percent of the deficits we currently face; the Recovery Act caused 6 percent; Medicare prescription drug caused 2 percent.

The final chart I have shows how these policies have affected the deficit over time. This is a chart which is labeled ``Why CBO's debt projections changed between 2001 and 2011,'' the specific policies and drivers. I know this is very difficult for anyone to see on a television. Let me make the main points.

The main points are that the changes caused by the legislation make up the large segments at the top of the chart, including interest charges. They caused 65 percent of the deficits when we look at these policy changes. The remaining 35 percent of deficits are due mainly to the economic and technical adjustments to CBO's projections primarily to reflect the lower revenue we have enjoyed because of the recessions.

How do we dig out of the hole we are in? I say simple obvious things. No. 1, we need to keep the focus on growing the economy. As Professor Blinder said, do not put the economy on a diet. This is not the right time to do that.

Second, we need to agree, as we did in 1990 and 1993 and 1997, to a balanced package of spending cuts and tax increases that will, once again, put us on a path to a balanced budget. We have some serious proposals to work from in achieving this deficit reduction plan. Of course, the President's deficit reduction commission, the Simpson- Bowles commission, and Senator Domenici and Alice Rivlin, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, put out a bipartisan commission report which is very constructive. The President himself has given the framework for a plan. There is a bipartisan group of Senators, the Gang of 6, who are working to come up with a proposal. And, of course, Senator Conrad, who chairs the Budget Committee, is putting together a proposed budget plan for that committee's consideration.

All of these plans I have mentioned follow the model used in the 1990s of combining both spending cuts and revenue increases. The only proposal that does not follow this model of a balanced package of spending cuts and tax increases is the budget that was passed by the House Republicans 2 weeks ago. Rather than raising revenue while cutting spending, it would cut revenue while cutting spending. In my view, this cannot lead us to a lower deficit.

There is a lot of political polarization in Washington. I remain hopeful that we can get a critical mass of right-thinking people to do what is responsible, to come together on a balanced package of spending cuts and revenue increases that we can commit to going forward. We should be able to agree on policies that grow the economy and shrink the long-term deficit.

I pledge my best efforts to achieve these objectives. I urge my colleagues to work to do so as well.

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

Mr. President, ``red or green?'' That is the question. As anyone who has ever dined in my State well knows, this inquiry refers to whether one prefers the zesty green chile or the piquant red chile when ordering New Mexico's unique native cuisine. In fact, in my State of New Mexico ``red or green'' is our official State question, and as I understand it, New Mexico is the only State that has designated a State question.

For hundreds of years, chile has been central to the culture of New Mexico. Early Spanish settlers brought the chile plant to New Mexico from the Valley of Mexico. Today, growing and processing chile peppers is New Mexico's signature industry providing about 5,000 jobs and a total value of about $400 million per year. The chile pepper and the frijole--or pinto bean--are also the State's official vegetables.

Today I honor the Baca family of Albuquerque and the 60th anniversary of Bueno Foods. Just as chile peppers are integral to New Mexican cuisine, for generations Bueno Foods has been integral to the preparation of delicious products made from chile. The Baca family is a pillar of New Mexico business and of the Barelas neighborhood in the South Valley of Albuquerque.

Three brothers, Joe, Ray, and August Baca, members of a long- established New Mexican family, returned to New Mexico in 1946 from serving in World War II. They opened a local grocery, the Ace Food Store in Barelas. Soon they started offering their mother's legendary cooking, adding a carry-out component to the store. At first, from the kitchen of their childhood home,

they made corn and flour tortillas, tamales and posole.

The homemade traditional New Mexican dishes were an immediate hit. Then, the Baca brothers had an idea. They talked about it around the supper table with their mother and father. They talked about it day and night. It was the early 1950s and every household was getting a freezer. Commercial frozen vegetables were becoming the rage. The brothers asked themselves two questions: Why couldn't they take a piece of their heritage, New Mexico's fresh-roasted green chile, and preserve it? Why couldn't they start with an autumn tradition and use freezers to make it last until the following year's harvest?

Thus, the Baca brothers were the first to flame roast green chile and freeze it on a commercial scale. No equipment existed, so they had to build it. No process existed, so they had to invent it. And on May 18, 1951, Bueno Foods was born.

Bueno Foods has grown steadily from that small neighborhood grocery store into a producer of 150 unique New Mexican and Mexican food products, spreading ``el sabor de Nuevo Mexico'' across the State and the Nation. Now owned and operated by the second generation of the Baca family in the same South Valley neighborhood, Bueno Foods employs about 220 people year-round and up to 350 during peak chile-roasting season. The Baca family is also active in the New Mexico Chile Association, a nonprofit organization composed of growers and producers fighting to ensure the chile industry remains and prospers in New Mexico.

The Baca family has always believed in giving back to its community. To help mark the 60th anniversary celebration, Bueno Foods is focusing on four elements that are important to the family and their company: improving the environment by planting 60 cottonwood trees to replace those destroyed in last year's bosque fire in Barelas; preserving their culture by giving away special Autumn Roast Chile grown in Hatch, NM; supporting literacy and education by providing 600 copies of the children's book ``Tia Tamales'' to low-income schools in New Mexico; and contributing to 60 community charities that focus on the basic needs of education, hunger, and stronger communities.

It is an honor to congratulate Jackie, Gene, Catherine, and Ana Baca and the Baca family on their 60 years of success with Bueno Foods, to thank them for all their good work in the South Valley and throughout New Mexico, and to remember those far-sighted brothers who started it all with a good idea and a chile roaster.

Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague Senator Udall of New Mexico to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2011. This bill continues an important federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.

I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why

I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three states: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the state of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 states are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,700 miles of public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about 1/3 of these roads are paved. The remaining 6,500 miles, 67 percent, are dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.

About 6,200 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 3,300 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian Reservation Road System. However, only BIA and tribal roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, the funding for road construction from the Federal Lands Highways Program in SAFETEA is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the states and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.

The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.

For example, in my State of New Mexico, \3/4\ of McKinley County is either tribal or federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land.

In San Juan County, Utah, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools.

The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, New Mexico, and Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, Arizona. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation.

Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy or snowy. If the school buses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school.

These children are literally being left behind.

Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation.

In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. In 2005, the program was reauthorized in SAFETEA through 2009, and now extended through 2011.

Under this program, $1.8 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three states. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by school buses.

This program has been very successful. For 14 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. I have had an opportunity to see firsthand the importance of this funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program.

The bill we are introducing today provides a simple 6 year reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2012 through 2017, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three states.

I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation, by far the nation's largest, and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively.

I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough hurdles to getting a good education. I ask my colleagues to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education.

I look forward to working with Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Vitter of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, to incorporate this legislation once again into the next comprehensive 6 year reauthorization of surface transportation programs.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague Senator Udall of New Mexico to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2011. This bill continues an important federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.

I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why

I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three states: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the state of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 states are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,700 miles of public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about 1/3 of these roads are paved. The remaining 6,500 miles, 67 percent, are dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.

About 6,200 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 3,300 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian Reservation Road System. However, only BIA and tribal roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, the funding for road construction from the Federal Lands Highways Program in SAFETEA is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the states and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.

The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.

For example, in my State of New Mexico, \3/4\ of McKinley County is either tribal or federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land.

In San Juan County, Utah, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools.

The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, New Mexico, and Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, Arizona. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation.

Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy or snowy. If the school buses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school.

These children are literally being left behind.

Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation.

In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. In 2005, the program was reauthorized in SAFETEA through 2009, and now extended through 2011.

Under this program, $1.8 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three states. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by school buses.

This program has been very successful. For 14 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. I have had an opportunity to see firsthand the importance of this funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program.

The bill we are introducing today provides a simple 6 year reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2012 through 2017, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three states.

I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation, by far the nation's largest, and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively.

I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough hurdles to getting a good education. I ask my colleagues to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education.

I look forward to working with Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Vitter of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, to incorporate this legislation once again into the next comprehensive 6 year reauthorization of surface transportation programs.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

S. 114, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement for a park headquarters at San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, to expand the boundary of the Park, to conduct a study of potential land acquisitions, and for other purposes;

S. 127, to establish the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area in the State of Texas, and for other purposes;

S. 140, to designate as wilderness certain land and inland water within the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in the State of Michigan, and for other purposes;

S. 161, to establish Pinnacles National Park in the State of California as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes;

S. 177, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the Gold Hill Ranch in Coloma, California;

S. 247, to establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park in Auburn, New York, and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park in Caroline, Dorchester, and Talbot Counties, Maryland, and for other purposes;

S. 279, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing Camp Hale as a unit of the National Park System;

S. 302, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue right-of- way permits for a natural gas transmission pipeline in nonwilderness areas within the boundary of Denali National Park, and for other purposes;

S. 313, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for a microhydro project in nonwilderness areas within the boundaries of Denali National Park and Preserve, to acquire land for Denali National Park and Preserve from Doyon Tourism, Inc., and for other purposes;

S. 323, to establish the First State National Historical Park in the State of Delaware, and for other purposes;

S. 403, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Molalla River in the State of Oregon, as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes;

S. 404, to modify a land grant patent issued by the Secretary of the Interior;

S. 508, to establish the Chimney Rock National Monument in the State of Colorado;

S. 535, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands within Fort Pulaski National Monument, and for other purposes;

S. 564, to designate the Valles Caldera National Preserve as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes;

S. 599, to establish a commission to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War;

S. 713, to modify the boundary of Petersburg National Battlefield in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and for other purposes;

S. 765, to modify the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument, and for other purposes;

S. 779, to authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American Battlefield Protection Program;

S. 849, to establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument in the State of Texas, and for other purposes; and

S. 858, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the Colonel Charles Young Home in Xenia, Ohio as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Sara Tucker or Allison Seyferth.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 12, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on carbon capture and sequestration legislation, including S. 699 and S. 757.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson or Abigail Campbell.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 16, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to review S. 343, a bill to amend Title I of PL 99-658 regarding the Compact of Free Association between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Palau, to approve the results of the 15-year review of the Compact, including the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Palau following the Compact of Free Association Section 432 Review, to appropriate funds for the purposes of the amended PL 99-658 for fiscal years ending on or before September 30, 2024, and to carry out the agreements resulting from that review.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Al Stayman or Abigail Campbell.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on new developments in upstream oil and gas technologies.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail [email protected].

For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson at (202) 224-7143 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 3, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the proposal for a Clean Energy Deployment Administration as contained in Title I, Subtitle A of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009. (S. 1462 of the 111th Congress)

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Mike Carr or Abigail Campbell.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 5, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on a joint staff Discussion Draft pertaining to cyber security of the bulk-power system and electric infrastructure and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Kevin Huyler or Meagan Gins.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a field hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 27, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., at the Santa Fe Convention and Visitors Center, 201 W. Marcy St., Santa Fe, New Mexico.

The purpose of the hearing will be to receive testimony on the current drought conditions affecting New Mexico and the status of reports to be issued pursuant to Sections 9503 and 9506 of the SECURE Water Act regarding a review of the current scientific understanding of the impacts of climate change on water resources and an assessment of the risks associated with climate change on water resources in certain river basins.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Meagan_Gins@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Tanya Trujillo at (202) 224- 5479 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been postponed. This hearing was scheduled to be held on Thursday, April 14, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing was to review S. 343 a bill to amend Title I of PL 99-658 regarding the Compact of Free Association between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Palau, to approve the results of the 15-year review of the Compact, including the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Palau following the Compact of Free Association Section 432 Review, to appropriate funds for the purposes of the amended PL 99-658 for fiscal years ending on or before September 30, 2024, and to carry out the agreements resulting from that review.

For further information, please contact Al Stayman at (202) 224-7865 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. President, I rise today to raise serious concerns about the offset proposed for H.R. 4.

I am very supportive of the underlying intent of H.R. 4--repeal of the 1099 reporting requirements, which were created in Affordable Care Act. In fact, I have voted to repeal these requirements over the last few months.

However, I have deep concerns about the offset proposed in H.R. 4. The offset represents harmful policy and has been strongly objected to by President Obama in a Statement of Administrative Policy or ``SAP'' issued on March 1.

Specifically, H.R. 4 would increase the tax burden on American families seeking health insurance coverage in the new health insurance exchanges. The legislation does so by increasing the amount of repayment that must be made by families who receive health insurance premium subsidies. Note that these taxpayers could be reporting their income correctly to the exchange throughout the year but still owe substantial payment or ``true-up'' when they file their taxes simply because the look-back period for subsidy eligibility encompasses an entire year. For example, under H.R. 4, families that have no income for part of the year--for example because of the loss of a job--could owe $12,000 in true-up payments because they secure employment midway through the year.

I am strongly supportive of ensuring that taxpayers receive accurate subsidies to help offset the cost of health insurance in the new State exchanges. Many experts throughout the Nation have told us, however, that it is critical to provide reasonable hold harmless levels for taxpayers given that subsidies are paid on a monthly basis and the look back period to determine income eligibility encompasses a year. These experts tell us that without such a hold harmless, taxpayers' willingness to participate in the new exchanges will be chilled resulting in only sicker, more costly populations coming to the exchange. This in turn, will drive up costs for individuals, families, and businesses purchasing coverage in the exchange. In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation has confirmed to me that they project hundreds of thousands of Americans will forgo the receipt of health insurance as a result of H.R. 4 and that a majority of the offsetting revenue from the amendment is generated by forgone health insurance coverage and subsidies, not the recouping of overpayments.

I ask unanimous consent that President Obama's March 1 SAP be printed in the Record.