Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins to introduce legislation to help reverse the devastating population decline and economic distress that has plagued individuals and businesses in Aroostook County, the northernmost county in Maine. What the bill does is simple, it will bring all of Aroostook County under the Empowerment Zone (EZ) program. The legislation is identical to a bill that we introduced in the 108th Congress and was included in the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill in 2003 as passed by the Senate.

To fully grasp the importance of this legislation, it is necessary to understand the unique situation facing the residents of Aroostook County. ``The County'', as it is called by Mainers, is a vast and remote region of Maine. As the northernmost county, it shares more of its border with Canada than its neighboring Maine counties. It has the distinction of being the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Its geographic isolation is even more acute when considering that the county's relatively small population of 73,000 people are scattered throughout 6,672 square miles of rural countryside. Aroostook County is home to 71 organized townships, as well as 125 unorganized townships much of which is forest land and wilderness.

As profound as this geographic isolation may seem, it is the economic isolation and the recent out-migration that has had the most devastating impact on the region. The economy of northern Maine has a historical dependence upon its natural resources, particularly forestry and agriculture. While these industries served the region well in previous decades, and continue to form the underpinnings of the local economy, many of these sectors have experienced decline and can no longer provide the number and type of quality jobs that residents need.

While officials in the region have put forward a Herculean effort to redevelop the region, with nearly 1,000 new jobs at the Loring Commerce Centre alone, Aroostook County is still experiencing a significant ``job deficit'', and as a result continues to lose population at an alarming rate. Since its peak in 1960, northern Maine's population has declined by 30 percent. Unfortunately, the Main State Planning Office predicts that Aroostook County will continue losing population as more workers leave the area to seek opportunities and higher wages in southern Maine and the rest of New England.

In January 2002, a portion of Aroostook County was one of two regions that received Empowerment Zone status from the USDA for out-migration. The entire county experienced an out-migration of 15 percent from 86,936 in 1990 to 73,938 in 2000. Moreover, a shocking 40 percent of 15 to 29-year-olds left during the last decade.

The current zone boundaries were chosen based on the criteria that Empowerment Zones be no larger than 1,000 square miles, and have a maximum population of 30,000 for rural areas. The lines drawn for the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone were considered to be the most inclusive and reasonable given the constraints of the program. It should be noted as well that the boundaries were drawn based on the 1990 census, making the data significantly outdated at the start and included the former Loring Air Force Base and its population of nearly 8,000 people, which had closed nearly 8 years before the designation, taking its military and much of its civilian workforces with it. The Maine State Planning Office estimated that the base closure resulted in the loss of 3,494 jobs directly related to the base and

another 1,751 in associated industry sectors for a total loss of $106.9 million annual payroll dollars.

Some of the most distressed communities that have lost substantial population are not in the Empowerment Zone, and other communities like Houlton literally are divided simply by a road, having one business on the south side of the street with no Empowerment Zone designation look out their window to a neighboring business on the north side of the street with full Empowerment Zone benefits. The economic factors for these communities and for these neighbors are the same as those areas within the Empowerment Zone. This designation is not meant to cause divisiveness within communities, it is created to augment a partnership for growth and to level the playing field for all Aroostook County communities who have equally suffered through continuing out migration whether it be in Madawaska or Island Falls.

The legislation I am introducing would provide economic development opportunities to all reaches of Aroostook County by extending Empowerment Zone status to the entire county. This inclusive approach recognizes that the economic decline and population out-migration are issues that the entire region must confront, and, as evidenced by their successful Round III EZ application, they are attempting to confront. I believe the challenges faced by Aroostook County are significant, but not insurmountable. This legislation would make great strides in improving the communities and business in northern Maine, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long believed that it is my responsibility and the duty of this chamber to help small businesses, as they are the driver of this Nation's economy, responsible for generating approximately 75 percent of net new jobs annually.

Today, I rise with Senator Bennett to introduce legislation that would address the crisis that faces small businesses when it comes to purchasing quality, affordable health insurance. This is not a new crisis. Nearly 46 million Americans are currently uninsured. We've now experienced double digit percentage increases in health insurance premiums in four of the past five years. Small businesses face difficult choices in seeking to provide affordable health insurance to their employees. We must act now.

Study after study tells us that the smallest businesses are the ones least likely to offer insurance and most in need of assistance. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, of the working uninsured, who make up 83 percent of our nation's uninsured population, 60.6 percent either work for a small business with fewer than 100 employees or are self-employed.

Furthermore, many of the small businesses who we meet with tell us how they feel like the cost and complexity of the health care system has moved health insurance far beyond their reach.

That is why today we introduce the Small Business Health Education and Awareness Act of 2006. This bill establishes a pilot, competitive matching-grant program for Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) to provide educational resources and materials to small businesses designed to increase awareness regarding health insurance options available in their areas. Recent research conducted by the Healthcare Leadership Council has found that a short, less than 10 minute education session, can increase small business knowledge and interest in offering health insurance by about 33 percent.

For those of you who are not familiar, SBDCs are one of the greatest business assistance and entrepreneurial development resources provided to small businesses that are seeking to start, grow, and flourish. Currently, there are over 1,100 service locations in every state and territory delivering management and technical counseling to prospective and existing small business owners.

Our legislation would require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide up to 20 matching grants to qualified SBDCs across the country. No more than two SBDCs, one per State, would be chosen from each of the SBA's 10 regions. The grants shall be more than $150,000, but less than $300,000 and shall be consistent with the matching requirement under current law. In creating the materials for their grant programs, participating SBDCs should evaluate and incorporate relevant portions existing health insurance options, including materials created by the Healthcare Leadership Council.

In addition, SBDCs participating in the pilot program would be required to submit a quarterly report to the SBA.

Enacting this legislation is an important step in the right direction towards assisting small businesses as they work to strengthen themselves, remain competitive against larger businesses that are able to offer affordable health insurance, and in turn bolster the entire economy.

We encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting this bill, and to continue to work to address the issues facing the small business community.

Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as Chair of Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to introduce The Small Business Partners In Reconstruction Act of 2006. This legislation, co- sponsored by Senator David Vitter, is the product of 3 hearings held in my Committee in September and November 2005, and in February 2006, which examined the response of the Small Business Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Homeland Security and its Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other Federal agencies to the devastation wrought by the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on our Gulf Coast states.

Speaking on September 15, 2005 from New Orleans' historic Jackson Square, President Bush declared that ``It is entrepreneurship that creates jobs and opportunity; it is entrepreneurship that helps break the cycle of poverty; and we will take the side of entrepreneurs as they lead the economic revival of the Gulf region.'' Unfortunately, the Federal Government's performance has not matched the President's declaration. This is particularly true with regards to the role of small firms, especially Gulf Coast small firms, with regards to contracts and subcontracts for recovery and reconstruction. Too often, small contractors have been treated in the disaster contracting process less like the partners in disaster recovery and economic revitalization they are, and more like unwanted stepchildren. Eight months after Hurricane Katrina, it is time for this to change.

To begin with, some Federal bureaucrats have used the Katrina and Rita disasters to exclude small business from contracting in the name of emergency and speed. Contracting with small firms, it was said, does not provide sufficient flexibility to the contracting officers in time of crisis. Quite the opposite is true. The Small Business Act contains flexible contracting authorities as part of the 8(a) program, the HUBZone program, and the service-disabled veteran-owned program, which allow Federal agencies to quickly buy goods and services in emergency situations. Indeed, on May 30, 2003, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy issued guidance on Emergency Procurement Flexibilities, which encouraged Federal agencies to use contracting flexibilities, such as the HUBZone flexibilities, which are part of the Small Business Act. This guidance was largely ignored, as billions of dollars went to large corporations through non-competitive mechanisms such as no-bid contracts or the so called micro-purchase authority, originally intended by Congress to cover small purchase card transactions.

My legislation requires the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to ensure that Federal contracting officials have the most comprehensive and up-to-date guidance on the full use of available small business emergency procurement flexibilities, and that such guidance is published in the Federal Register. My legislation also ensures that the SBA provides government-wide training for procurement agencies on using small business contracting flexibilities in emergency situations, and directs the SBA to designate at least one advisor for small business emergency contracting who would help Federal agencies apply small business procurement flexibilities in emergency situations.

Small contractors have also been denied access to reconstruction dollars by paperwork and bureaucracy. Red tape had the most serious effect on small disadvantaged businesses. Many of these contractors have been certified to do business under the Federally-funded, Congressionally-established Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE) for transportation contracting such as highway or bridge construction. In the Federal procurement system, a parallel Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Program exists. According to law and the Memorandum of Understanding between the SBA and the U.S. Department of Transportation, the DBE certifications are based on the SDB certification requirements under the Small Business Act. Unfortunately, DBEs have been unable to secure recognition as SDBs by the Federal agencies or by Federal prime contractors. As a result, agencies and prime contractors had little assurance that SDB goals may be met by doing business with DBEs. My measure will ensure that capable small contractors enjoy full reciprocity among contracting programs instead of the red tape they currently face.

Lack of comprehensive procurement data on Katrina and Rita contracting is another flaw which my bill is trying to correct. It is hard to believe that almost 8 months since the Hurricane Katrina struck, the Federal Government's disaster contracting ship is literally sailing blind. Both the Small Business Act and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act require that accurate and comprehensive data on government contracting and subcontracting, especially including small business participation, be collected and maintained. Although the government-wide procurement spending database, the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), collects the data related to Hurricane Katrina and Rita reconstruction, this data is demonstrably incomplete. According to the Government Accountability Office and admissions of Federal procurement officials, the FPDS data is not accurate and omits billions in Defense and Homeland Security contracts. As a result of these deficiencies, the Executive Branch made exaggerated claims concerning the share of reconstruction work that went to small businesses. For instance, last October, the Commerce Department claimed that small businesses received 72 percent of Katrina contracting dollars, and the SBA claimed the small business share to be at 45 percent. During hearings before my Committee, the GAO confirmed that the Administration's claimed numbers are unrealistic and unsubstantiated. My legislation directs the Administrators of the SBA and the OFPP to ensure that the Federal Procurement Data System reflects comprehensive government-wide contracting spending on Katrina and Rita reconstruction.

For years, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program, created to direct Federal contacting dollars to small firms in economically distressed areas, has been recognized as a potent economic development stimulus. Since its inception in 1997, the HUBZone program stimulated the hiring of over 124,000 HUBZone residents and investment of over half a billion dollars in HUBZones by HUBZone-certified firms. With the support of the Administration, I propose extending the HUBZone designation to the disaster region. A HUBZone designation would enable small businesses located in the disaster area and employing people in that area to receive contracting preferences and price evaluation preferences to offset greater costs of doing business. Extending the HUBZone designation to the Gulf Coast would bring needed businesses development tools to affected areas of the Gulf Coast. Under my proposal, the SBA Administrator would have the discretion to define the geographic scope or duration of this designation to ensure that the HUBZone preference is targeted to those who need it the most.

Small businesses vying for government contracts or subcontracts often must post bid or performance bonds in order to convince Federal contracting officials or prime contractors that small business are a good project risk. In turn, small firms must seek bonding from private bonding companies. The SBA, through its surety bond program,

has provided guarantees on bonds awarded to small businesses up to $2 million. But small firms need an increase in bonds to handle larger projects for hurricane relief. Local small businesses in the Gulf Coast can use higher bonds to compensate for the damage to their assets from the hurricanes. My legislation would increase the maximum size of SBA surety bonds from $2 million to $5 million, and provide the SBA with authority to increase the maximum size to $10 million upon request of another Federal agency. In its proposal to re-build the Gulf Coast region, the Administration suggested making the $5 million increase.

My legislation also directs the SBA to create a contracting outreach program for small businesses located or willing to locate in the Katrina disaster area for the next five years. Federal contracts and subcontracts can provide critical assistance to small businesses located in the areas devastated by the hurricanes in the form of solid business opportunities and prompt, steady pay. In addition, government procurement would open doors for many local small businesses to participate in the long-term reconstruction work in the Gulf Coast areas. While many small businesses would benefit from other forms of disaster assistance, many of them want to get back to work and into business as soon as possible. Technical assistance and outreach through the SBA, the Procurement Technical Assistance Centers, the Federal Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilizations, and other organizations could prove invaluable to these firms.

Yet, outreach alone would not ensure fair participation of small businesses in Gulf Coast reconstruction contracts. To promote jobs creation and development in the disaster region, the Federal Government must set and follow definitive goals for small business participation. Prior to the disaster, small construction companies in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana received nearly $500 million in Federal contracts a year. Total small business contracts in the Gulf Coast region exceeded $3 billion a year. With the Federal cost of hurricane relief and rebuilding estimated at over $100 billion, small businesses, particularly those located in the disaster area and that employ individuals in the affected areas, should receive their fair share of Federal contracting and subcontracting dollars. My legislation establishes a 30 percent prime contracting goal and a 40 percent subcontracting goal on each agency's hurricane-related reconstruction contracts. These goals are compatible with the Department of Homeland Security's and the Army Corps of Engineers' history of small business achievements.

My legislation would also address two unfortunate provisions in the Second Katrina Supplemental Appropriations that unwisely changed the emergency procurement authority Congress granted to contracting officers in the aftermath of 9/11 and reclassified many reconstruction contracts into categories that excluded small firms from prime contracting or subcontracting. I spoke out against these provisions, and Congress ultimately repealed them last year. Nonetheless, this bill puts in place safeguards to ensure that small firms do not fall prey to such actions again. My legislation protects the Small Business Reservation (SBR) for disaster-related contracts below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). The SAT and the SBR are normally set at $100,000. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act allowed Federal agencies to use simplified procedures for all contracts below the SAT, but only if they attempt to place, or ``reserve'', these contracts to qualified small businesses. Many small businesses qualify for contracts under expedited procedures under the Small Business Act, which would help to move the reconstruction process forward. The SBR does not delay relief contracting. If no qualified small business is available to do the job, agencies can place the contract with any qualified supplier. This provision restores the parity between the SBR and the SAT any time the SAT is increased for disaster-related contracts.

My legislation also restores small business subcontracting requirements in emergency procurements. The Second Katrina Supplemental abolished small business subcontracting requirements for all Katrina- related contracts by treating contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars as purchases of commercial items, like contracts for office supplies. This is an improper and unjustified procurement practice. The Army Corps of Engineers currently imposes a 73 percent subcontracting requirement on hurricane-related contracts, demonstrating that the subcontracting requirements are not onerous. Under the Small Business Act, only a ``good faith effort'' to provide subcontracting opportunities is required. The legislation allows a grace period of 30 days to negotiate an acceptable plan (subject to a 50 percent payment limitation until the plan is concluded).

Looking forward, my legislation directs the Administrators of the OFPP and the SBA to work with other Federal agencies to ensure creation of multiple-award contracts for disaster recovery which are set aside for small business concerns. As the GAO testified before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship last year, Federal agencies lacked adequate acquisition planning for hurricane disaster relief. This measure would reverse this practice both for ongoing and for future disaster recovery efforts.

I am a firm believer that the reconstruction acquisition process must be not only efficient, but also transparent. In this regard, the Federal Government provides central website postings for all Katrina- related opportunities through the SBA's Sub-NET. Unfortunately, the SBA's Sub-NET subcontracting database, though recommended by the Government, has been until recently unused by the Katrina prime contractors. My legislation directs all prime contractors which received substantial Federal contracts related to the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for which subcontracting plans are required to post subcontracting announcements on the SBA's Sub-NET online database.

Finally, my legislation addresses the government's failure to direct contract dollars to those who need them the most--local small businesses. During the hearings in my Committee last November, I was deeply troubled to discover that Federal agencies failed to grant business opportunities to qualified Gulf Coast small firms. These shocking practices make a mockery of our national commitment to rebuild the Gulf Coast. For instance, while investigating Hurricane Katrina contracts at my request, the GAO found a memorandum from an official in the Army Corps of Engineers informing the SBA that the Corps has successfully concealed the information about millions of dollars in upcoming contracts for mobile classrooms in Mississippi from, among others, local small businesses. The Corps requested that SBA approve giving this work to an out-of-state company without any prior experience. As a result, the Corps excluded a local small business, licensed by the Mississippi Department of Education, from bidding. Incredibly, the SBA obliged and approved the contract three times, eventually increasing its value from $10 million to $47 million.

Practices such as these violate Section 15 of the Small Business Act, which unequivocally directs priority in government contracts ``to small business concerns which shall perform a substantial proportion of the production on those contracts and subcontracts within areas of concentrated unemployment or underemployment or within labor surplus areas.'' It is hard to imagine a clearer example of an ``area of concentrated unemployment or underemployment'' or a area with labor surplus than the devastated Gulf Coast region. Nonetheless, some have ignored the clear command of the statute. My legislation would designate the Gulf Coast disaster area as a labor surplus area for purposes of the Small Business Act's preference for labor surplus area contractors. In addition, this provision authorizes Federal agencies to use contractual set-asides, incentives, and penalties to enhance participation of local small business concerns in disaster recovery contracts and subcontracts.

Finally, my legislation suspends the application of the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration (Comp Demo) program to Gulf Coast disaster contracts. The Comp Demo Program denies the protections of the Small Business Act like set-asides to small businesses involved in construction and

specialty trade contracting, refuse systems and related services, landscaping, pest control, non-nuclear ship repair, and architectural and engineering services, including surveying and mapping. Historically, small businesses have been the backbone of these industries, and these industries are in heavy demand for disaster recovery efforts. The Comp Demo Program, ostensibly a test program, denies Federal agencies likes the Departments of Defense and nine other agencies the ability to do small business set-asides. Essentially, the Comp Demo Program reserves whole industries for big business. Last year, at the request of the Department of Defense, I supported an amendment to terminate the Comp Demo Program. The Senate agreed that small businesses in all industries should receive the full protections of the Small Business Act, and unanimously voted to repeal this Program. Suspending this Program for Katrina and Rita contracts would go a long way towards restoring fair treatment for small businesses affected by this disaster.

I believe this legislation will find broad support in this body. Indeed, the HUBZone designation, the outreach programs, and the surety bonding increase have already been adopted by the Senate on a vote of 96-0 as part of my amendment to the Science, State, Commerce, and Justice Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. The provisions dealing with the small business reservation offset and retention of small business subcontracting in emergency procurements were cosponsored by a bi-partisan group of Senators as part of my bi-partisan disaster relief bill, S. 1807. With the Senate leadership and every Senator of both parties on the record in support of greater access of small businesses to Federal contracts, I look forward to speedy consideration of this legislation and its support by the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act to protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil record for the benefit of our citizens. I am pleased to have Senators Baucus, Feinstein, Durbin, Roberts, and Inouye join me as original cosponsors on this significant legislation.

This bill was reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and approved by unanimous consent during the 108th Congress. A similar bill was introduced in the other body by Representative James R. McGovern, with 15 cosponsors, but was not reported by the Resources Committee. I hope we can pass this again quickly in the Senate and move the bill in the House of Representatives.

You may remember that in 1999, Congress requested that the Secretary of the Interior review and report on the Federal policy concerning paleontological resources on Federal lands. In its request, Congress noted that no unified Federal policy existed regarding the--treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies, and emphasized Congress's concerns that a lack of appropriate standards would lead to the deterioration or loss of fossils, which are valuable scientific resources. Unfortunately, that situation remains the case today.

In the past year alone, there have been compelling finds of fossils that are helping us unlock the mysteries of the past from the earth, whether violent tectonic cataclysms or depletion of oxygen in the oceans and consequent drastic changes in species. The National Parks Conservation Association NPCA, a bipartisan non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing National Parks, recently called for ``stronger laws, better enforcement, and better education programs . . . to more fully protect these valuable [fossil] relics.'' In its Fall 2004 issue of National Parks, the article described the discovery at Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota, in July 2003, of fossilized remains of a 5-foot tall hornless rhinoceros, a collie-sized horse, and a foot-tall, deer-like mammal.

National Parks are the home of many extraordinary fossil discoveries already, such as the graveyards of 20-million-year old camels and rhinos at Agate Fossil Beds National Monument in Nebraska, the only pygmy island-dwelling mammoth at Channel Islands National Park in California; and tropical dinosaurs in what are now the arid lands of the Painted Desert of southern Arizona.

Besides the National Park Service, other Federal land management agencies have a number of regulations and directives on paleontological resources, but they are not consistent and there is no clear statutory language providing direction in protecting and curating fossils. I would like to commend to my colleagues two reports recently published by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, which we know as an impartial, non-partisan legislative research service that provides analysis for Congress. The CRS American Law Division published two reports entitled ``Federal Management and Protection of Fossil Resources on Federal Lands'' and, ``Paleontological Resources Protection Act: Proposal for the Management and Protection of Fossil Resources Located on Federal Lands.''

These two reports analyze the status and activities of Federal agencies with paleontological responsibilities, the statutory authorities for fossils, the case law supporting them, and the bills recently introduced on fossils such as S. 546 in the 108th Congress. The reports point out that several Federal agencies have management authority for the protection of fossil resources on the lands under their jurisdiction--the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service. The report also points out that the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Defense, and Smithsonian Institution have some fossil responsibilities. The reports further find that agency enforcement and prosecution policies differ greatly and there is only limited and scattered authority for Federal management and protection of fossil resources on Federal lands.

The report concludes that the scattered authorities result in case law on fossil protection that is not well developed and not necessarily consistent. The cases do not provide clear case precedent and are not necessarily applicable to broader protection, regulation, management, and marketing issues.

Both reports conclude that there is an absence of uniform regulations for paleontological resources on Federal lands--as shown by an absence of precise uniform definitions of key terms--and that there is no comprehensive statute or management policy for the protection and management of fossils on Federal lands.

The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act embodies the principles recommended by an interagency group in a 2000 report to Congress entitled ``Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands.'' The bill provides the paleontological equivalent of protections found in the Archaeological Resources Preservation Act. The bill finds that fossil resources on Federal lands are an irreplaceable part of the heritage of the United States and affirms that reasonable access to fossil resources should be provided for scientific, educational, and recreational purposes. The bill acknowledges the value of amateur collecting and provides an exception for casual collecting of invertebrate fossils, but protects vertebrate fossils found on Federal lands under a system of permits. The fossil bill does not restrict access of the interested public to fossils on public lands but rather will help create opportunities for involvement. For example, there are many amateur paleontologists volunteering to assist in the excavation and curation of fossils on national park lands already.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that this bill in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act. They are exempted because they are very different types of resources This bill covers only paleontological remains-- fossils on Federal lands.

As we look toward the future, public access to fossil resources will take on a new meaning, as digital images of fossils become available worldwide. Discoveries in paleontology are made

more frequently than we realize. They shape how we learn about the world around us. In January of this year, Science Express, the on-line version of the journal Science, reported two studies using paleontological data to understand the causes of the ``Great Dying,'' or mass extinctions that occurred about 250 million years ago in the Permian-Triassic period. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act would create a legacy for the production of scientific knowledge for future generations.

The protections offered in this act are not new. Federal land management agencies already have individual regulations prohibiting theft of government property. However, the reality is that U.S. attorneys are reluctant to prosecute cases involving fossil theft because they are difficult. The National Park Service reported 721 incidents of vandalism; and visitors annually take up to 12 tons of petrified wood from Petrified Forest National Park, a fact that has lead the NPCA to place the Petrified National Forest on its ``Ten Most Endangered National Parks'' lists in 2000 and 2001.

Congress has not provided a clear statute stating the value of paleontological resources to our Nation, as has been provided for archaeological resources. Fossils are too valuable to be left within the general theft provisions that are difficult to prosecute, and they are too valuable to the education of our children not to ensure public access. We need to work together to make sure that we fulfill our responsibility as stewards of public lands, and as protectors of our Nation's natural resources.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with the senior Senator from Hawaii to introduce legislation to authorize three important water reclamation projects in the State of Hawaii. This legislation, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005, is identical to legislation considered in the 108th Congress that passed the Senate by unanimous consent on May 19, 2004.

Although one usually does not readily associate the State of Hawaii as a place with drought problems, Hawaii has been experiencing drought conditions since 1998. The Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005 builds upon the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000 P.L. 106-566 that authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to survey irrigation and water delivery systems in Hawaii and

identify new opportunities for reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater for agriculture and non-agricultural purposes. While the Act resulted in the development of the initial Hawaii Drought Plan in 2000, which was updated this past year to incorporate comments and recommendations made by the Bureau of Reclamation, more needs to be done.

Although Hawaii is just beginning to recover from a multi-year drought, the National Weather Service has indicated that due to a mild El Nino effect in the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii may again experience another period of drought. It is imperative for Hawaii to improve its ways to reduce consumption of drinking water. The legislation that I am introducing today, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005, will help the State of Hawaii to be proactive by authorizing projects that will address the demand on our freshwater supply, especially on the islands of Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii.

The legislation authorizes three projects. The first project, in Honolulu, will provide reliable potable water through resource diversification to meet existing and future demands, particularly in the Ewa area of Oahu where water demands are outpacing the availability of drinking water. The second project, in North Kona, will address the issue of effluent being discharged into a temporary disposal sump from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project would utilize subsurface wetlands to naturally clean the effluent and convey the recycled water to a number of users. The third project, in Lahaina, will reduce the use of potable water by extending the County of Maui's main recycled water pipeline.

The Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005 will begin the next phase of ensuring that the State of Hawaii will continue to have a supply of fresh drinking water. It is vitally important for the State to begin working on these water reclamation projects and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which is important to communities in Hawaii.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Sanctions Policy Reform Act.

The fundamental purpose of my bill is to promote good governance through thoughtful deliberation on those proposals involving unilateral economic sanctions directed against other countries. My bill lays out a set of guidelines and requirements for a careful and deliberative process in both branches of government when considering new unilateral sanctions. It does not preclude the use of economic sanctions nor does it change those sanctions already in force. It is based on the principle that if we improve the quality of our policy process and public discourse, we can improve the quality of the policy itself.

Numerous studies have shown that unilateral sanctions rarely succeed and often harm the United States more than the target country. Sanctions can jeopardize billions of dollars in U.S. export earnings and hundreds of thousands of American jobs. They frequently weaken our international competitiveness by yielding to other countries those markets and opportunities that we abandon. They also can undermine our ability to provide humanitarian assistance abroad.

Unilateral sanctions often appear to be cost-free, but they have many unintended victims--the poor in the target countries, American companies, American labor, American consumers and, quite frankly, American foreign policy. Sanctions can weaken our international competitiveness, lower our global market share, abandon our established market to others and jeopardize billions in export earnings--the key to our economic growth. They may also impair our ability to provide humanitarian assistance. They sometimes anger our friends and call our international leadership into question. In many cases, unilateral sanctions are well-intentioned, but impotent, serving only to create the illusion of U.S. action. In the worst cases, unilateral sanctions are actually undermining our own interests in the world.

Unilateral sanctions do have a place in our foreign policy. There will always be situations in which the actions of other countries are so egregious or so threatening to the United States that some response by the United States, short of the use of military force, is needed and justified. In these instances, sanctions can be helpful in getting the attention of another country, in showing U.S. determination to change behaviors we find objectionable, or in stimulating a search for creative solutions to difficult foreign policy problems.

But decisions to impose them must be fully considered and debated. Too frequently, this does not happen. Unilateral sanctions are often the result of a knee-jerk impulse to take action, combined with a timid desire to avoid the risks and commitments involved in more potent foreign policy steps that have greater potential to protect American interests. We must avoid putting U.S. national security in a straight- jacket, and we must have a clear idea of the consequences of sanctions on our own security and prosperity before we enact them.

To this end, I am offering this bill to reform the U.S. sanctions decision-making process. The bill will establish procedural guidelines and informational requirements that must be met prior to the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions. For example, before imposing unilateral sanctions, Congress would be required to consider findings by executive branch officials that evaluate the impact of the proposed sanctions on American agriculture, energy requirements, and capital markets. The bill mandates that we be better informed about the prospects that our sanctions will succeed, about the economic costs to the United States, and about the sanctions' impact on other American objectives.

In addition, this sanctions policy reform bill provides for more active consultation between the Congress and the President and for Presidential waiver authority if the President determines it is in our national security interests. It also establishes an executive branch Sanctions Review Committee, which will be tasked with evaluating the effect of any proposed sanctions and providing appropriate recommendations to the President prior to the imposition of such sanctions.

The bill would have no effect on existing sanctions. It would apply only to new sanctions that are enacted after this bill became law. It also would apply only to sanctions that are unilateral and that are intended to achieve foreign policy goals. As such, it excludes trade remedies or trade sanctions imposed because of market access restrictions, unfair trade practices, or violations of U.S. commercial or trade laws.

Let me suggest a number of fundamental principles that I believe should

shape our approach to unilateral economic sanctions: unilateral economic sanctions should not be the policy of first resort (to the extent possible, other means of persuasion ought to be exhausted first); if harm is to be done or is intended, we must follow the cardinal principle that we plan to harm our adversary more than we harm ourselves; when possible, multilateral economic sanctions and international cooperation are preferable to unilateral sanctions and are more likely to succeed, even though they may be more difficult to obtain; we ought to avoid double standards and be as consistent as possible in the application of our sanctions policy; to the extent possible, we ought to avoid disproportionate harm to the civilian population (we should avoid the use of food as a weapon of foreign policy and we should permit humanitarian assistance programs to function); our foreign policy goals ought to be clear, specific and achievable within a reasonable period of time; we ought to keep to a minimum the adverse affects of our sanctions on our friends and allies; we should keep in mind that unilateral sanctions can cause adverse consequences that may be more problematic than the actions that prompted the sanctions--a regime collapse, a humanitarian disaster, a mass exodus of people, or more repression and isolation in the target country, for example; we should explore options for solving problems through dialogue, public diplomacy, and positive inducements or rewards; the President of the United States should always have options that include both sticks and carrots that can be adjusted according to circumstance and nuance (the Congress should be vigilant by ensuring that his options are consistent with Congressional intent and the law); and in those cases where we do impose sanctions unilaterally, our actions must be part of a coherent and coordinated foreign policy that is coupled with diplomacy and consistent with our international obligations and objectives.

An unexamined reliance on unilateral sanctions may be appropriate for a third-rate power whose foreign policy interests lie primarily in satisfying domestic constituencies or cultivating a self-righteous posture. But the United States is the world's only superpower. Our own prosperity and security, as well as the future of the world, depend on a vigorous and effective assertion of our international interests.

The United States should never abandon its leadership role in the world, nor forsake the basic values we cherish. We must ask, however, whether we are always able to change the actions of other countries whose behavior we find disagreeable or threatening. If we are able to influence those actions, we need to ponder how best to proceed. In my judgment, unilateral economic sanctions will not always be the best answer. But, if they are the answer, they should be structured so that they do as little harm as possible to our global interests. By improving upon our procedures and the quality and timeliness of our information when considering new sanctions, I believe U.S. foreign policy will be more effective.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friends and colleagues Senators Feingold from Wisconsin, and Lott from Mississippi, and our good friends who lead the campaign finance reform fight in the House, Representatives Shays and Meehan, in introducing a bill to end the illegal practice of 527 groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections.

As my colleagues know, a number of 527 groups raised and spent a substantial amount of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of last year's Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the Federal Election Commission, FEC, has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC's misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts.

According to an analysis by campaign finance scholar Tony Corrado, Federally oriented 527s spent $423 million on the 2004 elections. The same analysis shows that ten donors gave at least $4 million each to 527s involved in the 2004 elections and two donors each contributed over $20 million.

In September, we filed a lawsuit to overturn the FEC's failure to issue regulations to stop these illegal practices by 527 groups. President Bush and his campaign filed a similar lawsuit against the FEC as well, and I also appreciate President Bush's support for the legislative effort we begin today on 527s. Today, we are introducing legislation that will accomplish the same result. We are going to follow every possible avenue to stop 527 groups from effectively breaking the law, and doing what they are already prohibited from doing by longstanding laws.

The bill we introduce today is simple. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal candidate elections, State or local ballot initiatives, or the nomination or confirmation of individuals to non- elected offices.

Additionally, this legislation would set new rules for Federal political committees that spend funds on voter mobilization efforts effecting both Federal and local races and, therefore, use both a Federal and a non-Federal account under FEC regulations. The new rules would prevent unlimited soft money from being channeled into Federal election activities by these Federal political committees.

Under the new rules, at least half of the funds spent on these voter mobilization activities by Federal political committees would have to be hard money from their Federal account. More importantly, the funds raised for their non-Federal account would have to come from individuals and would be limited to no more than $25,000 per year per donor. Corporations and labor unions could not contribute to these non- Federal accounts. To put it in simple terms, a George Soros could give $25,000 per year as opposed to $10 million to finance these activities.

Let me be perfectly clear on one point here. Our proposal will not shut down 527s, it will simply require them to abide by the same Federal regulations every other Federal political committee must abide by in spending money to influence Federal elections.

It is unfortunate that we even need to be here introducing this bill today. This legislation would not be necessary if it weren't for the abject failure of the FEC to enforce existing law. As my colleagues well know, some organizations, registered under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, had a major impact on last year's presidential election by raising and spending illegal soft money to run ads attacking both President Bush and Senator Kerry. The use of soft money to finance these activities is clearly illegal under current statute, and the fact that they have been allowed to continue unchecked is unconscionable.

The blame for this lack of enforcement does not lie with the Congress, nor with the Administration. The blame for this continuing illegal activity lies squarely with the FEC. This agency has a duty to issue regulations to properly implement and enforce the Nation's campaign laws--and the FEC has failed, and it has failed miserably to carry out that responsibility. The Supreme Court found that to be the case in its McConnell decision, and Judge Kollar-Kotelly found that to be the case in her decision overturning 15 regulations incorrectly adopted by the FEC to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA. That is why a Los Angeles Times editorial stated that, ``her decision would make a fitting obituary for an agency that deserves to die.'' We are not going to allow the destructive FEC to continue

to undermine the Nation's campaign finance laws as it has been consistently doing for the past two decades.

Opponents of campaign reform like to point out that the activities of these 527s serve as proof that BCRA has failed in its stated purpose to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money in our political campaigns. Let me be perfectly clear on this. The 527 issue has nothing to do with BCRA, it has everything to do with the 1974 law and the failure of the FEC to do its job and properly regulate the activities of these groups.

As further evidence of the FEC's lack of capability, let me quote from a couple of court decisions which highlight this agency's shortcomings. First, in its decision upholding the constitutionality of BCRA in McConnell v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the FEC had ``subverted'' the law, issued regulations that ``permitted more than Congress had ever intended,'' and ``invited widespread circumvention'' of FECA's limits on contributions. Additionally, in September, a Federal district court judge threw out 15 of the FEC's regulations implementing BCRA. Among the reasons for her actions were that one provision ``severely undermines FECA'' and would ``foster corruption'', another ``runs completely afoul'' of current law, another would ``render the statute largely meaningless'' and, finally, that another had ``no rational basis.''

The track record of the FEC is clear and, by their continued stonewalling, the Commission has proven itself to be nothing more than a bureaucratic nightmare, and the time has come to put an end to its destructive tactics. The FEC has had ample, and well documented, opportunities to address the issue of the 527's illegal activities, and each time they have taken a pass, choosing instead to delay, postpone, and refuse to act.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer's dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the American people, and the Constitution. We've fought too long and too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law.

So, here is the bottom line: If the FEC won't do its job, and its commissioners have proven time and time again that they won't, then we'll do it for them. The bill Senators Feingold, Lott and I introduce today will put an end to the abusive, illegal practices of these 527s.

I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this bill and put an end to this problem once and for all.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, February 9 at 11:30 a.m. to consider pending calendar business.

Agenda:

Agenda Item 1: S. 47--A bill to provide for the exchange of certain Federal land in the Santa Fe National Forest and certain non-Federal land in the Pecos National Historical Park in the State of New Mexico.

Agenda Item 8: S. 63--A bill to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 9: S. 74--A bill to designate a portion of the White Salmon River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Agenda Item 14: S. 134--A bill to adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of California.

Agenda Item 17: S. 153--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a resource study of the Rim of the Valley Corridor in the State of California to evaluate alternatives for protecting the resources of the Corridor, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 18: S. 156--A bill to designate the Ojito Wilderness Study Area as wilderness, to take certain land into trust for the Pueblo of Zia, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 20: S. 163--A bill to establish the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area in the State of Utah, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 22: S. 176--A bill to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

Agenda Item 23: S. 177--A bill to further the purpose of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 by directing the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to carry out an assessment of demonstration programs to control salt cedar and Russian olive, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 24: S. 178--A bill to provide assistance to the State of New Mexico for the development of comprehensive State water plans, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 26: S. 200--A bill to establish the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area in the State of Georgia, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 27: S. 203--A bill to reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid for sodium produced on Federal lands, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 28: S. 204--A bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area in the State of Louisiana.

Agenda Item 29: S. 205--A bill to authorize the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish in the State of Louisiana a memorial to honor the Buffalo Soldiers.

Agenda Item 30: S. 207--A bill to adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State of Louisiana, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 31: S. 212--A bill to amend the Valles Caldera Preservation Act to improve the preservation of the Valles Caldera, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Agenda Item 32: S. 214--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States on the border with Mexico and other appropriate entities in conducting a hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, and modeling program for priority transboundary aquifers, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 33: S. 225--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program to reduce the risks from and mitigate the effects of avalanches on recreational users of public land.

Agenda Item 34: S. 229--A bill to clear title to certain real property in New Mexico associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 35: S. 231--Mr. Smith, et al.--a bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the rehabilitation of the Wallowa Lake Dam in Oregon, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 36: S. 232--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to assist in the implementation of fish passage and screening facilities at non-Federal water projects, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 37: S. 243--A bill to establish a program and criteria for National Heritage Areas in the United States, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 38: S. 244--Mr. Thomas--a bill to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Wyoming.

Agenda Item 39: S. 249--Mr. Reid, et al.--a bill to establish the Great Basin National Heritage Route in the States of Nevada and Utah.

Agenda Item 40: S. 252--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land in Washoe County, Nevada, to the Board of Regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada.

Agenda Item 41: S. 253--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to the land to the Edward H. McDaniel American Legion Post No. 22 in Pahrump, Nevada, for the construction of a post building and memorial park for use by the American Legion, other veterans' groups, and the local community. '

Agenda Item 42: S. 254--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka.

Agenda Item 43: S. 263--A bill to provide for the protection of paleontological resources on Federal lands, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 44: S. 264--A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain projects in the State of Hawaii.

In addition, the Committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on EPA's proposed budget for fiscal year 2006.

The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on Wednesday, February 9, 2004 at 11 a.m. to hold a Members' Briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 9, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed meeting.