Mr. President, I thank my colleague and the chairman of the committee very much. I wish to talk today about an amendment I am hoping to offer. It is amendment No. 480. It relates to the funding of our national public land management…
Mr. President, I thank my colleague and the chairman of the committee very much. I wish to talk today about an amendment I am hoping to offer. It is amendment No. 480. It relates to the funding of our national public land management agencies so they can create jobs and do the important work that needs to be done in their various jurisdictions.
We have had a lot of talk about how it is important that we focus the funds we have in this legislation on jobs that can be created quickly. We have had lots of talk about how we need to focus these resources on the real needs of the country and jobs where we can actively monitor the decisions that are made so we know that the money is not being wasted. In my view, this amendment does all of those things. It is a proposal to add an additional $2.5 billion to funding for the National Park Service, for the Forest Service, for the Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Bureau of Land Management, and for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to carry out the critical land and resource management
projects they have identified that need to be carried out on our public lands.
Fourteen Senators joined me in cosponsoring the amendment: my colleague, Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Boxer, Senator Wyden, Senator Merkley, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, Senator Levin, Senator Stabenow, as well as Senators Kerry, Leahy, Schumer, and Senator Udall from Colorado.
Now, the estimates we have from the various public land management agencies are that this additional funding would allow them to create an additional 45,000 jobs between now and the end of the next fiscal year; that is, the end of September of 2010. I have heard a lot of criticism that the cost per job of this proposed legislation is too much, and I have heard the $800,000-per-job figure thrown around. When you look at this, all the figures I have indicated that we are talking about $56,000 per job for this next 2-year period. These jobs are vitally needed and can be carried out quickly.
Let me give some examples of what I am talking about and what I think could be done with this extra funding. One example in the National Park Service is we need to complete the stabilization construction for the seawall at Ellis Island and the asbestos removal at the Statue of Liberty National Monument. These are projects that are underway but don't have adequate funding to be completed. We need to repair trails at Olympic National Park. We need to replace substandard employee housing at Grand Canyon National Park. I am sure my colleagues from Arizona will recognize, having seen that substandard housing, that would be a good use of public funds. We need funding for road repair and replacement at Bandelier National Monument in my home State of New Mexico.
As far as Forest Service funding goes, much more funding is needed to thin the forests to reduce wildfire fuels and restore forest health. This thinning work is labor intensive. It is work that requires chainsaw crews and heavy-equipment operators. These people are out of work today. These people can be put to work very quickly doing this important work, and this forest thinning work protects our communities that are located near these national forests from wildfires.
The Bureau of Land Management has a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done with regard to reclaiming abandoned oil and gas wells and mine sites. In my State alone, we have 8,000 acres that are covered with abandoned oil wells and hundreds of abandoned mines waiting for reclamation funding. Again, there are contractors and there are workers who are anxious to have this work, if we would just fund it.
Regarding State and tribal wildlife grants, there are examples in my home State where we need to install fish screens, replace culverts, and we need to work in the Rio Grande area to restore cutthroat trout habitat, and much work can be accomplished there.
Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that if we want to put public funds into work that is important to the public and if we want to put public funds into projects that can create jobs quickly and stimulate the economy through that effort, I believe this amendment is ideally designed to accomplish that. I hope very much that my colleagues will support it.
There has been a lot of talk about how we need to reduce the size of this overall legislation. I don't agree with that. Virtually all of the economists--conservative and liberal--have all said, if anything, this legislation is too small as it currently stands. But whatever the size of the legislation, this is the kind of job-creation funding in which we ought to be engaging. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I intended to offer an amendment to this bill to appropriate $1 billion to the Department of Energy Federal Energy Management Program, FEMP. The funds would have been used to expand the scope of energy savings performance contracts, ESPCs, and utility energy savings contracts, UESCs. In the last 10 years, 195 ESPCs and UESCs have invested about $3 billion in Federal facilities and have produced about 28,500 jobs. The costs of these projects have been entirely repaid from savings.
The amendment was necessary and consistent with our stimulus goals because it would have multiplied the job creation and the energy savings from every dollar of Treasury investment. In addition to providing significant financial leverage, ESPC and UESC projects comply with the standards the Congress established in section 432 of EISA--42 U.S.C. section 8253 (f)(1) through (f)(7)--for energy projects in Federal facilities: comprehensive energy and water conservation and efficiency measures, full utilization of renewable energy technologies, and transparency and accountability through long-term monitoring of project savings.
The amendment I intended to offer would have given FEMP the incentive to quickly clear its pipeline of about $2.2 billion of shovel-ready projects, to accelerate the pace of new project development so that we would have another $3 billion of projects implemented in the next 2 years, and enabled FEMP to expand the scope of the ESPC and UESC projects by paying for the advanced metering and monitoring systems that the Congress has mandated but not yet funded.
Based on the history of the ESPC and UESC projects, my amendment would have assured that about $6 billion of projects would be implemented, creating almost 60,000 jobs, at a cost to the Treasury of $1 billion. I, therefore, urge the Federal agencies that are receiving substantial new appropriations for energy projects to use the ESPC and UESC projects as models of what the Congress wants to see accomplished with the taxpayers' dollars.