Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

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, November 17, 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 the Secretary of the Interior's Order No. 3315 to Consolidate and Establish the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement within the Bureau of Land Management.

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, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Patricia Beneke (202) 224- 5451 or Jake McCook (202) 224-9313.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Rebuild America Jobs Act. I, first, just clarify for folks, because it is a little confusing, we have had several proposals to create jobs that have come to the floor in the last several weeks, and they have similar names. The one before us today is the Rebuild America Jobs Act, and it is a portion of the larger American Jobs Act that President Obama proposed and set out for the Congress to consider in September.

Let me talk first about that larger bill which the President proposed. This American Jobs Act the President proposed would have a very significant and beneficial impact on my State of New Mexico. Under that legislation, there would be payroll tax cuts for about 40,000 businesses in my State. There would be an expansion of payroll tax cuts for workers that would provide a typical household in New Mexico, having a median income of $44,000, with a tax cut of about $1,360 per year.

There would be support for up to 2,600 construction jobs in upgrading public schools. There would be $20 million to revitalize vacant and foreclosed businesses and homes. There would be over $49 million for community colleges in New Mexico. There would be unemployment insurance reforms that could help put 32,000 unemployed New Mexicans back to work. And there is funding in that legislation for up to 3,100 teachers and police officers and first responders to keep those people on the job so they can continue to provide services to our schools, to our students, and to our communities.

But despite the fact that all these important investments would be fully paid for--and that is made clear in the legislation; not a single dollar would be added to the national debt--this comprehensive legislation was blocked by a filibuster by our Republican colleagues a couple weeks ago. I commend Senator Reid for continuing to fight to keep job creation on top of the legislative agenda and for bringing up parts of this broader legislation independently to see if we can get support for any of these individual parts because each of them has a great deal of merit.

Two weeks ago, we voted on the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act. This would have helped States and local governments keep over 400,000 teachers, police, and firefighters on the job during these tough economic times. It was disappointing to me that this effort failed to get enough votes so we could go ahead and consider the bill.

The legislation we are discussing would provide $50 billion in infrastructure investments in highways and transit and in rail projects across the country, and in doing those investments it would create thousands of jobs. Among other things, it would put Americans to work in improving 150,000 miles of roads, 4,000 miles of train tracks, restoring 150 miles of airport runways, and in implementing the NextGen air traffic modernization efforts that this Congress should be strongly supporting. Those are efforts to improve air safety and to reduce delays in air traffic.

So passage of this legislation would mean at least $284 million in my home State of New Mexico in immediate infrastructure investments. That investment of $284 million would support a minimum of 3,700 local jobs. These resources are greatly needed in my State. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that about 22 percent of New Mexico's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition; 19 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, according to the Federal Highway Administration.

In addition, the bill includes $10 billion to establish an independent national infrastructure bank in order to leverage private and public funds in advancing a broad range of infrastructure projects through loans and loan guarantees. Under this proposal that was modeled after bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Kerry and Hutchison earlier this year, the bank would help finance large-scale transportation, water, and energy projects that are of national and regional significance. I am glad to see that the infrastructure bank included in this bill would begin to address some of the significant challenges we have of stimulating investment in new energy projects. There is simply not enough capital available in the country to deploy these technologies at the scale we need to deploy them to meet our national security objectives and to remain competitive in growing international markets for clean energy technologies. So the availability of this type of financing through this national infrastructure bank could be helpful in developing the transmission capacity required to bring renewable energies developed in my State of New Mexico to communities throughout the country.

Let me also briefly comment on the fact that there is revenue raised in order to pay for this set of investments that are being proposed; that is, there is a so-called offset for the cost of this legislation. That is because I think all of us agree the deficit is at unsustainable levels. We should not be committing to increased spending without finding a way to pay for it, and that is why this legislation contains a revenue-raising provision. The legislation would impose a 0.7-percent surtax on income exceeding $1 million.

What does that mean? That means that if a person's annual income is $1 million, then this legislation does not, in any way, change the taxes they are required to pay. So any garden-variety millionaire who only receives $1 million per year in income is not required to pay any more under this legislation. But if they exceed that and their income is $1,110,000, for example, they would have to pay an extra $700 toward the cost of this legislation.

The reality is, modernizing our Nation's infrastructure and stimulating job growth and enhancing policies to

assist with our economic recovery does cost money. We all wish it did not, but it does. Frankly, if we are going to give more than just lip service to addressing our persistent deficits, I think it is reasonable to ask the wealthiest among us to pitch in to move America forward to get this economy moving again.

In New Mexico, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of taxpayers would be impacted by this modest surtax. That means 99.9 percent of New Mexicans would not be impacted at all, and the handful of filers who would be impacted would only pay the surtax on the portion of their annual income that exceeds $1 million.

I strongly believe this legislation, the Rebuild America Jobs Act, that we are going to try to proceed to tomorrow--or whenever we can get consent from our Republican colleagues to proceed to it--I believe is important legislation. It is an important step in turning our economy around, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

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 Monday, November 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 7th Floor Courtroom of the Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse, 300 Virginia Street, East Charleston, WV 25301.

The purpose of the hearing is to examine Marcellus Shale Gas development and production in West Virginia.

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 Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov.

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

Mr. President, Salomon E. Ramirez, New Mexico State executive director of USDA's Farm Service Agency, died October 22 at his family's ranch in Rociada, NM. He was 56 years old. Salomon came from a ranching family in San Miguel County and devoted his life to serving agriculture in New Mexico and the Nation.

He was born in Las Vegas, NM, attended Robertson High School, and graduated with a degree in agriculture from New Mexico State University. His passion for agriculture and a desire to help farmers and ranchers in New Mexico led him to a career at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including positions at both the Farm Service Agency and the U.S. Forest Service. Because of his knowledge and experience, he spent time at USDA's headquarters in Washington helping to write a new farm bill and implement national farm policy.

Salomon Ramirez was a model public servant. He worked at USDA for over 30 years and was a tireless advocate for my State's farmers and ranchers. No one knew more about farm programs or understood how they could best be implemented to support the producers in my State. My staff and I frequently sought his counsel and valued his always astute advice. I was honored to recommend him to be the State executive director of the New Mexico Farm Service Agency and was pleased when President Obama appointed him to the position in 2009.

No State had a more capable or caring manager for its farm programs than New Mexico. He was a true friend of agriculture and everyone who depends on agriculture from producers to consumers--in fact, all of us. He will be greatly missed.

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, November 8, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider market developments for U.S. natural gas, including the approval process and potential for liquefied natural gas exports.

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 Allison [email protected]

For further information, please contact Deborah Estes at (202) 224- 5360 or

Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224- 4905.

Madam President, the next amendment is amendment No. 771; is that correct?

Madam President, this amendment will increase funding for the U.S. Trade Representative's Office to the level the President requested, also to the level the House appropriators have proposed. It adds nearly $4.5 million to the budget for the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. This is funding that is needed to enforce our trade agreements. We just entered into three new free-trade agreements. They need the personnel in order to try to enforce these. We have a great many trade disputes with China--all of us are aware of that--and other major industrial countries as well.

This amendment has the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and the National Pork Producers Council.

This is good legislation which I hope all Senators will support.

I yield the floor.

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 Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Saturday, November 5, 2011, at 11:00 a.m., at the CCC Recreation Hall, Mile Post 19, Mesa Verde National Park, CO.

The purpose of the hearing is to examine issues affecting management of archaeological, cultural, and historic resources at Mesa Verde National Park and other units of the National Park System.

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, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or Jake McCook (202) 224-9313.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 771, and ask that it be modified with the changes that are already at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this is an amendment to increase funding for the U.S. Trade Representative so that the Trade Representative can conduct trade enforcement activities.

The amendment is cosponsored by Senator Stabenow, and I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Coons and Senator Brown from Ohio as cosponsors as well.

This amendment would provide an additional $4,476,000 to the Trade Representative's Office above the level that is provided for in the bill. That amount is fully offset. It would fund the USTR at $51,251,000 this year. That is the same level of funding that the President has in his budget request, and also the same level of funding that has been arrived at in the House Appropriations Committee in their legislation. Clearly, there is bipartisan support for this level of funding for the Trade Representative's office.

Last week, as all of us will remember, we sent to the President three new free-trade agreements. I supported those free-trade agreements because they promised to open new markets for American businesses so we can sell more goods that are produced here in the United States. However, if American businesses and workers are to benefit from trade agreements, the United States needs to do more to ensure our trading partners are competing fairly. This means we have to enforce the trade agreements and the U.S. trade laws. Right now, in my view, we are not providing enough resources to the Trade Representative's Office for enforcement activities.

The USTR's general counsel's office has 30 attorneys. Of that 30, 22 are staff attorneys actually involved in day-to-day litigation. These two dozen or so people are responsible for preparing and prosecuting trade dispute cases at the World Trade Organization or under the dispute resolution mechanisms in our free-trade agreements. They are also responsible for defending the United States when other countries file complaints against us. In my view, this is not enough staff to respond in a timely manner to the numerous allegations about unfair trade practices that are being committed by our trading partners.

For example, the U.S. Trade Representative's investigation into China's export restraints on rare earth minerals has been underway for more than 2 years. There are many other concerns about China's trade practices. In fact, many have been discussed here on the Senate floor today. Does China provide subsidies to its companies that are inconsistent with the World Trade Organization? Is China unfairly closing its markets to U.S. goods or unfairly requiring U.S. companies to transfer technology and intellectual property to Chinese companies as a condition of doing business in China? These are serious questions that American businesses have raised informally. In fact, the United Steel Workers formally raised these issues in a section 301 petition last year. Many of these allegations are not fully investigated because we simply have not committed the resources in the U.S. Trade Representative's Office to do the investigations.

Only two attorneys in the U.S. Trade Representative's general counsel's office work on the rare earths and raw materials cases. USTR needs the resources to act quickly to combat unfair trade practices before U.S. industries are irreparably harmed.

The Senate also recently demonstrated bipartisan support for trade enforcement when it passed the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act. That was on October 11. The vote there was 63 to 35. I voted for that bill as well. This amendment I am offering today would help provide the U.S. Trade Representative with additional resources to enforce the provisions in that bill as well. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Let me say a few words about the offset. The amendment would propose to rescind $8 million from the Department of Justice asset forfeiture fund. This fund contains the funds that DOJ obtains from seizing and selling assets, for example, speedboats that are seized from drug dealers. The Department of Justice uses some of these funds for law enforcement, but most of the funds are not used. The fund had a balance of more than $841 million at the end of fiscal year 2009; $974 million at the end of 2010; $701 million at the end of fiscal year 2011. The Department of Justice projects it will collect more than $1.7 billion from seized assets this year.

Because of the excess funds in this fund, this asset forfeiture fund, the President's budget suggested that we rescind 620 million of those dollars. The proposal I am making in this as an offset is that we add an additional $8 million so that the total amount rescinded from that fund would be $628 million rather than $620 million. This would leave in the fund $474 million, which I believe is an adequate amount to ensure that the Department of Justice has the resources it needs for its law enforcement activities.

I believe this is a very meritorious amendment. I think it improves the very good legislation that has been brought to the Senate floor by the Appropriations Committee, but I hope that this amendment can be approved and added to the legislation when the issue is raised for a vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, on November 18, exactly a month from now, the current law that permits funding of the government will expire. Something will have to be enacted in its place since it is clear to all of us, I believe, that we will not have passed and sent to the President all of the appropriations bills by that time.

The normal procedure for enacting funding bills is for them to originate in the House of Representatives and be passed there, and then they come to the Senate for consideration and get passed here.

I come to the floor today to urge that before the expiration of the current continuing resolution; that is, before November 18, the House enact and send to the Senate a funding bill which extends funding to the end of the current fiscal year, which is September 30, 2012. My simple point is that, in my view, it is irresponsible for us to continue funding the government just a few weeks at a time.

Already this year, we experienced a near shutdown of the Federal Government in April, a near default on the country's debt in August, a partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration in August, and another near shutdown of the Federal Government 3 weeks ago because of a dispute over disaster funding. These repeated ``Perils of Pauline'' scenarios have understandably shaken the confidence of Americans about their government and, more particularly, about this Congress.

This government-generated uncertainty also has real economic consequences. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said:

The negotiations that took place over the summer disrupted

financial markets and probably the economy as well, and

similar events in the future could, over time, seriously

jeopardize the willingness of investors around the world to

hold U.S. financial assets or to make direct investments in

job-creating U.S. businesses.

So these are self-inflicted wounds that the economy can ill afford, and reducing the risk of them occurring in the future would provide a modicum of certainty to businesses in this country and throughout the world.

Congress can readily eliminate the risk of a government shutdown during this fiscal year simply by enacting a full-year continuing resolution. The sad reality is that in recent years the Congress has more and more relied on short-term funding bills or so-called continuing resolutions to keep the government functioning while we try to reach agreement on appropriations levels.

So some would ask, why are the circumstances different this year? They are different for the simple reason that we have already settled on the level of funding for the government. The Budget Control Act of 2011 that was enacted in August set the spending levels for the Federal Government for this year and for each of the next 9 years. These spending levels were passed with large bipartisan majorities in both Chambers. Here in the Senate, the vote was 74 to 26. Therefore, enacting a full-year continuing resolution that sets Federal spending at that level should not be controversial.

We should not have to rehash the debate on spending levels every few months. Adopting a full-year continuing resolution would free up valuable time in Congress to work on other legislation intended to create jobs and to help the economy.

A full-year continuing resolution also allows the government to operate more efficiently than it can under a series of short-term continuing resolutions. Short-term continuing resolutions make it difficult for Federal agencies to enter into construction contracts, such as to build or repair roads, or to enter into long-term supply contracts that are often less expensive than short-term supply contracts. In other words, short-term continuing resolutions delay critical projects and increase the overall cost to taxpayers. Adopting a full-year continuing resolution would address both of these problems.

It is clear that passing a long-term continuing resolution does nothing to preclude Congress from going ahead and passing individual appropriations bills as they are agreed upon. Stan Collender, a respected budget expert, has written about this issue. I will quote from an article he wrote. He said:

If the tried and true procedure is used, the CR will simply

stop applying to the departments and agencies when the

separate appropriation is signed. In appropriations-speak,

those covered by the individual spending bill will

``disengage'' from the CR.

The only argument I have heard against passing a continuing resolution for the rest of the year is the argument that doing so will take away the pressure on the appropriations committees and the Congress to pass the remaining appropriations bills. That is essentially an argument to force those of us in Congress to do what we ought to do; that is, to pass appropriations bills. In order to do our basic job, do we need to subject the rest of the government and the country to a series of threatened shutdowns? And especially, do we need to do that at a time when we have already agreed on spending levels?

I question this argument. It seems to me that both parties--Democrats and Republicans--and particularly the appropriators both in the House and the Senate have substantial incentive to reach agreement and pass appropriations bills whether a yearlong continuing resolution has been adopted or not. And if it were true that passing a yearlong continuing resolution would lessen the incentive to complete action on appropriations bills, then so be it. To my mind, the benefit from eliminating the threat of a series of government shutdowns far outweighs any disadvantage that might result from failure to pass full appropriations bills.

So, to me, the conclusions are clear. First, we have already as a Congress agreed on spending levels for the current fiscal year. Second, we should make every effort to pass all the appropriations bills reflecting those spending levels as soon as possible. Third, while we are making that effort to pass the appropriations bills, the responsible course is to pass a continuing resolution that extends to the end of the fiscal year. Here is a chance for us to provide at least a modest degree of predictability for the remaining 11 months of this current fiscal year. I believe we owe it to the American people to do just that.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with Senator Tom Udall, aimed at increasing economic activity in New Mexico communities situated along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Currently, Mexican nationals holding biometric Border Crossing Cards, also known as Laser Visas, may travel up to 25 miles into the United States for a period of up to 30 days. The purpose of this initiative is to promote border commerce by allowing frequent, low-risk visitors to travel to U.S. border communities to conduct business, visit family, and shop.

Unfortunately, New Mexico has not benefited under this program to the extent that other border states have. The three largest cities along the New Mexico border--Las Cruces, Lordsburg, and Deming--are all outside of the current 25-mile geographical limit, and Mexican nationals with BCCs must acquire additional permits to visit these cities.

In order to address a similar situation, an exception was made for Arizona in 1999 to allow BCC holders to travel to Tucson. This change resulted in increased economic activity without in any way jeopardizing security. Tailoring the program to maximize its impact in the respective border states is the right approach, and I fail to see why a similar modification should not be made for New Mexico.

The legislation we are introducing today, the Southern New Mexico Economic Development Act, would expand the geographic limit from 25 miles to 75 miles to permit visitors coming to New Mexico to reach the larger cities in the southern part of the state. This change would facilitate economic activity at a crucial time as border communities are looking to increase tourism and create growth.

Changing this regulation wouldn't cost taxpayer money, it will increase economic activity in communities that have been hit hard by the economic downturn, and will do so in a manner consistent with our border security efforts.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with Senator Tom Udall, aimed at increasing economic activity in New Mexico communities situated along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Currently, Mexican nationals holding biometric Border Crossing Cards, also known as Laser Visas, may travel up to 25 miles into the United States for a period of up to 30 days. The purpose of this initiative is to promote border commerce by allowing frequent, low-risk visitors to travel to U.S. border communities to conduct business, visit family, and shop.

Unfortunately, New Mexico has not benefited under this program to the extent that other border states have. The three largest cities along the New Mexico border--Las Cruces, Lordsburg, and Deming--are all outside of the current 25-mile geographical limit, and Mexican nationals with BCCs must acquire additional permits to visit these cities.

In order to address a similar situation, an exception was made for Arizona in 1999 to allow BCC holders to travel to Tucson. This change resulted in increased economic activity without in any way jeopardizing security. Tailoring the program to maximize its impact in the respective border states is the right approach, and I fail to see why a similar modification should not be made for New Mexico.

The legislation we are introducing today, the Southern New Mexico Economic Development Act, would expand the geographic limit from 25 miles to 75 miles to permit visitors coming to New Mexico to reach the larger cities in the southern part of the state. This change would facilitate economic activity at a crucial time as border communities are looking to increase tourism and create growth.

Changing this regulation wouldn't cost taxpayer money, it will increase economic activity in communities that have been hit hard by the economic downturn, and will do so in a manner consistent with our border security efforts.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

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

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

Mr. President, last Saturday, Thomas P. Foy died at his home in Bayard, NM, a few weeks shy of his 97th birthday. A native of Grant County, he lived most of his outstanding life there, except for the years he spent as a prisoner of war in Japan including the Bataan Death March. It was a life largely devoted to public service and completely devoted to the public good.

The word ``survivor'' is used rather freely these days, but he and his comrades, many of them fellow New Mexicans who managed to live through the horrors of years of internment, deserve the title if anyone does. But Tommy didn't just survive, he triumphed and prospered in a life well-lived.

He had graduated from Notre Dame, and received a law degree from there a year before he joined the New Mexico National Guard in 1940. Assigned to the Philippines, the 200th Coast Artillery Battery surrendered after holding out for 5 months against the Japanese and began their gruesome forced march to prison. In 1945, the war was ended and he was rescued.

His postwar life was full of accomplishment and service. Practicing law, marrying, running for--and winning--public office, founding a bank and raising five children with his wife Joan, and doing it all with a stout, cheerful heart brought him admiration and affection from all quarters. He served in the New Mexico State Legislature for 28 years.

For many of us from Grant County, this is the loss of a beloved family member. My parents, now deceased, and my wife Anne and I certainly share that view. A stalwart figure, he was true to his faith, his family, our country and Notre Dame, and deeply loved and respected in return. He is already greatly missed.

Mr. President, today I introduced, along with Senator Murkowski and 22 other Senators S. 1692, the County Payments Reauthorization Act of 2011. The bill would provide dependable funding to support public schools, transportation infrastructure, and other critical county programs in more than 1,900 counties in 49 States. Specifically, it would continue to fund for 5 more years the Payments In Lieu of Taxes Program, and it would reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The Secure Rural Schools Act expired at the end of September.

Economists have long said that funding for local governments not only provides one of the most efficient and immediate ways to create and save jobs, it also helps to ensure that essential community services on which economic growth depends are maintained. These programs have proven that point in recent years. They have been lifelines for financially strapped rural counties and the thousands of Americans they employ and they contract with. They employ a multitude of public school teachers, support countless miles of county road projects, fund thousands of collaborative forest and watershed restoration projects, and pay for hundreds of community wildfire risk reduction programs in all parts of the country.

I would like to give one example from my home State of New Mexico. Many of my colleagues may know that the Wallow fire this summer grew to become the largest fire in the history of Arizona. My colleagues may not know that its leading edge burned more than 15,000 acres into New Mexico, and it threatened the community of Luna in Catron County, New Mexico.

When I visited the town of Luna, the community's firefighters told me the wildfire risk reduction projects they had completed using funds from the Secure Rural Schools Program helped to save their town. The funds from this bill also will fund many projects to help their local forests and watersheds and many others around New Mexico to recover from the severe fires that burned there this summer.

Despite the important work these programs support, we recognize that funding these programs is not easy, given the financial circumstance in which we find ourselves. We worked for months to build this strong coalition in the Senate and among the stakeholders in support of these programs across the country. In the process there have been an array of differing views about the details of how these programs should be structured going forward.

For example, recognizing the difficult financial situation in communities around the country and the urgent need to create jobs, some would significantly increase funding for these programs. Others, recognizing the challenging fiscal situation that the Federal Government faces, would sharply reduce funding for these programs. Some would shift the emphasis of the Secure Rural Schools Program to forestry projects such as those covered by titles II and III of that program. Others would shift the emphasis to public schools and to road projects.

But most importantly, there has been broad agreement on the most critical issues. First, there is broad agreement that funding for these two programs is immensely important. Second, there is broad agreement that the only way for us to successfully continue that funding is for us to renew the compromise we negotiated in 2008. Congress overwhelmingly passed that compromise, it has provided funding for these programs for the last 4 years, and our communities have broadly supported it.

The alternative, which seems to have become routine in Congress, is to emphasize our differences and destroy the coalition of support that will be essential to continue funding of these programs.

I greatly appreciate the support and leadership of Senator Murkowski and many others. Let me mention all those who have helped with this bill and who are cosponsoring this effort: Senator Baucus, Senator Crapo, Senator Wyden, Senator Risch, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Cochran, Senator Tester, Senator Blunt, Senator Feinstein, Senator Heller, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Boxer, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, Senator Bennet, Senator Merkley, Senator Sanders, Senator Tim Johnson, Senator Begich, Senator McCaskill, Senator Mark Udall, Senator Franken, and Senator Levin--all of whom are cosponsoring this important legislation.

I hope the rest of the Senate will join us once again to support the continuation of these important programs and enact this legislation.

Mr. President, today I introduced, along with Senator Murkowski and 22 other Senators S. 1692, the County Payments Reauthorization Act of 2011. The bill would provide dependable funding to support public schools, transportation infrastructure, and other critical county programs in more than 1,900 counties in 49 States. Specifically, it would continue to fund for 5 more years the Payments In Lieu of Taxes Program, and it would reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The Secure Rural Schools Act expired at the end of September.

Economists have long said that funding for local governments not only provides one of the most efficient and immediate ways to create and save jobs, it also helps to ensure that essential community services on which economic growth depends are maintained. These programs have proven that point in recent years. They have been lifelines for financially strapped rural counties and the thousands of Americans they employ and they contract with. They employ a multitude of public school teachers, support countless miles of county road projects, fund thousands of collaborative forest and watershed restoration projects, and pay for hundreds of community wildfire risk reduction programs in all parts of the country.

I would like to give one example from my home State of New Mexico. Many of my colleagues may know that the Wallow fire this summer grew to become the largest fire in the history of Arizona. My colleagues may not know that its leading edge burned more than 15,000 acres into New Mexico, and it threatened the community of Luna in Catron County, New Mexico.

When I visited the town of Luna, the community's firefighters told me the wildfire risk reduction projects they had completed using funds from the Secure Rural Schools Program helped to save their town. The funds from this bill also will fund many projects to help their local forests and watersheds and many others around New Mexico to recover from the severe fires that burned there this summer.

Despite the important work these programs support, we recognize that funding these programs is not easy, given the financial circumstance in which we find ourselves. We worked for months to build this strong coalition in the Senate and among the stakeholders in support of these programs across the country. In the process there have been an array of differing views about the details of how these programs should be structured going forward.

For example, recognizing the difficult financial situation in communities around the country and the urgent need to create jobs, some would significantly increase funding for these programs. Others, recognizing the challenging fiscal situation that the Federal Government faces, would sharply reduce funding for these programs. Some would shift the emphasis of the Secure Rural Schools Program to forestry projects such as those covered by titles II and III of that program. Others would shift the emphasis to public schools and to road projects.

But most importantly, there has been broad agreement on the most critical issues. First, there is broad agreement that funding for these two programs is immensely important. Second, there is broad agreement that the only way for us to successfully continue that funding is for us to renew the compromise we negotiated in 2008. Congress overwhelmingly passed that compromise, it has provided funding for these programs for the last 4 years, and our communities have broadly supported it.

The alternative, which seems to have become routine in Congress, is to emphasize our differences and destroy the coalition of support that will be essential to continue funding of these programs.

I greatly appreciate the support and leadership of Senator Murkowski and many others. Let me mention all those who have helped with this bill and who are cosponsoring this effort: Senator Baucus, Senator Crapo, Senator Wyden, Senator Risch, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Cochran, Senator Tester, Senator Blunt, Senator Feinstein, Senator Heller, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Boxer, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, Senator Bennet, Senator Merkley, Senator Sanders, Senator Tim Johnson, Senator Begich, Senator McCaskill, Senator Mark Udall, Senator Franken, and Senator Levin--all of whom are cosponsoring this important legislation.

I hope the rest of the Senate will join us once again to support the continuation of these important programs and enact this legislation.