Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2005

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, let me thank Senators Hutchison and Feinstein, the managers of this bill, for the opportunity to offer and discuss my amendment to provide emergency agricultural disaster assistance for our farmers and ranchers. Normally, most of my colleagues know I would not offer this amendment on an unrelated measure. Our hand is forced. We are told it is highly unlikely there will be an Agriculture appropriations bill considered separately. We have no alternative but to offer this measure to this legislation.

This amendment will determine whether thousands of farm families will be able to continue next year. We have had 2 years of unusual natural disasters that have affected agriculture across this country. These people need to know whether they can continue in the business of farming and ranching. Their bankers need to know. This legislation is critical to that determination.

For over a year, I, along with many of my Senate colleagues--let me indicate that it is already nearly 20 of my colleagues--have come on a bipartisan basis to cosponsor this bill, including Senator Coleman of Minnesota; Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska; my own colleague, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota; Senator Salazar of Colorado; Senator Hagel of Nebraska; Senator Johnson of South Dakota; Senator Thune of South Dakota; Senator Enzi of Wyoming; Senator Baucus of Montana; Senator Reid of Nevada; Senator Clinton; Senator Obama; Senator Durbin; Senator Leahy; Senator Harkin; Senator Cantwell; Senator Burns of Montana; Senator Schumer; and Senator Roberts of Kansas. Repeatedly, we have come to the Senate to try to get disaster assistance considered.

Last spring, as part of the hurricane supplemental, the Senate approved an agricultural disaster package for the 2005 crop-year. That measure was dropped in conference due to opposition from the administration and the House leadership. I have taken out the provisions that drew the opposition of the administration. Those direct payments that were an offset to the dramatic runup in energy prices are not in this bill.

The legislation I am offering today is nearly identical to the bipartisan relief provision I introduced on September 20, 2006. My amendment is bipartisan and has 19 cosponsors.

The need for this amendment is compelling. In North Dakota last year, as this picture shows, we faced extraordinary flooding. Over a million acres were prevented from being planted. Hundreds of thousands of acres that were planted were drowned out because of excessive rainfall. There was no disaster assistance for those farmers.

This year, in the irony of ironies, we now have experienced an extraordinary drought. This is a picture from my home county, Burleigh County, where the capital of North Dakota is located. This is a corn crop, but nothing was produced. It is only one of thousands of fields that were not worth harvesting.

This drought has been determined by the USDA meteorologist to be the third worst drought in our Nation's history. Only the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the prolonged drought of the 1950s compared to what many parts of the country have been facing.

This chart shows the U.S. Drought Monitor. It shows how severe the drought was all across the Midwest and Southeast. Its darkest colors represent exceptional drought. North Dakota and South Dakota were the epicenter of this drought in late July. It has been totally devastating to my part of the country. If assistance is not granted, literally thousands of farm families will be forced off the land. That is a fact.

The independent bankers of my State said to a White House representative who was in my office that if assistance does not come, 5 to 10 percent of their customers in North Dakota will be forced out of business. Mr. President, 34 farm organizations have told Congress that assistance is needed and it is needed now. In addition, we have a letter from the State commissioners of agriculture from all across the country saying that emergency agricultural disaster assistance is a high priority requiring action by Congress this year. It could not be more clear. Assistance is needed. It is needed now.

As I noted last May, the Senate approved disaster assistance, only to be thwarted by the threat of a veto. In June, the Senate Committee on Appropriations once again approved emergency disaster assistance as part of the Agriculture appropriations bill for 2007. Thus far, that bill has failed to come to the Senate.

On numerous occasions, including the last day we were in session before we recessed for the elections, I tried to get the Senate to adopt disaster relief legislation. Again, the effort was stymied.

Today, we have another chance to do what is necessary and what is right. My amendment incorporates many of the provisions already approved by the Senate, but I have made a few modifications to address the objections raised by the administration. The economic assistance provisions help producers offset rising energy costs, and the direct grants to States to assist specialty crop and livestock sectors have been removed. Those provisions, at the insistence of the White House, have been removed.

Also, the administration has stated that we need to wait until harvest is concluded. The harvest is now over for 2006; the losses are real and significant throughout many parts of the country.

The crop and livestock production loss provisions contained in the original legislation were retained and will apply for both the 2005 and 2006 production years. Crop producers will still need to demonstrate a 35-percent loss before they get any assistance. The Livestock Compensation Program will only be made to producers whose operations are in counties designated as disaster areas by the Secretary and who can demonstrate they have suffered a material loss. The legislation also contains additional funding for conservation operations to help restore and rehabilitate drought and livestock losses on grazing land. Scientists have told us this is imperative. Because of the modifications, the cost of providing disaster assistance for 2005 and 2006 has been reduced from $6.7 billion to $4.9 billion--a reduction of nearly $2 billion.

Farmers and ranchers need assistance for the 2005 and 2006 fall disaster losses, and they need it now. If these emergencies are not addressed, literally tens of thousands of farm families and Main Street businesses will suffer, many irreparably. It is time to act and allow the Senate to vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, I conclude by saying I regret having to offer this amendment to this legislation. I have no choice. We have no choice. The over 20 Members of the Senate who have come forward to sponsor this legislation in various variations of the legislation have no choice. If we do not act now, tens of thousands of farm families will not be able to continue. The stakes are high. I urge my colleagues to give favorable consideration to this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would reserve the right to object. This presents us with somewhat of an awkward situation because I have withheld offering my amendment. The only amendment pending is the amendment of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka. But we have been on my amendment. We withheld actually offering it. I would ask my colleague if she would at least allow us to call up my amendment--Senator Akaka was waiting to speak on the amendment--and then be able to lay that amendment aside?

Mr. President, might I now call up my amendment?

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

I thank the Chair.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to be included in that order so that I may be able to respond to whatever the Senator from New Hampshire might say.

Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague with great interest. He is the chairman of the Budget Committee, someone with whom I work closely and have respect for and affection for. But he has talked about this violating the budget. There is no budget. No budget has been passed. My colleagues have been in control, and we have not passed a budget. Let's be square about this. There is no budget.

No. 2, this is not the new Congress; this is a continuation of the old Congress. The old Congress didn't get the job done. Let's be straight about that.

No. 3, the Senator said this has been defeated in the past in the Senate. Wrong. This has passed the Senate. This passed the Senate with 77 votes. It wasn't defeated; it was passed with 77 votes on a bipartisan basis. The package that passed was more generous than this package because the White House raised objection to that package. The White House said it was too much money. The White House said they did not want the direct payments as an offset to the skyrocketing energy prices, so we took those provisions out and saved $1.8 billion. That is the package that is before this body. It is the package that has passed. In fact, in the appropriations process, it passed several

times. In fact, it is waiting in the Agriculture appropriations bill right now.

Unfortunately, that bill, we are told, is not going to be considered. So the only opportunity we have to address the emergency disaster concerns of people all across this country is with this amendment, make no mistake. This amendment is fully bipartisan. We now have 20 cosponsors.

This is an emergency. So pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this doesn't bust the budget. No, no, no. We have always handled natural disasters in this way, with an emergency designation. That is the rule, that is the precedent, that is what we have done before, and that is what we should do now. This is not breaking the budget. That is just not the case. The Senator knows it is not the case.

This is a circumstance, as we have dealt with every natural disaster in the past: We make a determination whether an emergency exists. Clearly it does. We have been struck by the third worst drought in our Nation's history. This provision passed this body with 77 votes.

The people who are out there expect the Congress, expect the Senate to respond to the needs of the American people. We have a need for security. We have a need, an absolute need, for a return to fiscal responsibility. We also have a need to deal with natural disasters when they strike the American family. This is a set of disasters almost unprecedented in our history. The people who have been hit by them deserve a response. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Does the Senator from New Hampshire want to continue?

Mr. President, we recognize the Senator would be within his rights to make a motion under rule XVI. I say to the Senator, we hope he will not do that. We hope we will have a chance for a vote on the Senate floor on this question. I say to my colleagues, if we don't get a vote now, we are not going to stop until we do get a vote.

I say to my colleague, it is certainly reasonable to bring a challenge under the Budget Act and to require a supermajority vote, but I hope very much that the Senator will not use rule XVI on a matter of this importance to so many people across the country. I implore the Senator not to invoke rule XVI.

Mr. President, I have been advised that the other side may intend to raise rule XVI against my amendment. I would ask them before they make that judgment, it would be entirely in order for me to offer my amendment to the Vietnam PNTR legislation. And if we are going to get treated this way, then I reserve my right to offer the amendment on the Vietnam PNTR. That will assure that the Vietnam PNTR will not get done during this week. So if others are going to treat us that way, they should be prepared for me to play hardball, too.

I have been very patient. I have operated under the regular rules repeatedly. But if others are going to give us short shrift, if they are going to tell the farmers and the ranchers who have suffered disaster that they don't even get a vote, then I am prepared to play hardball, too.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.

Let me be very clear. Senators have a right to invoke rule XVI. But let's be clear. This is how emergency disasters have been dealt with year after year after year in this body. What I am seeking to do is to get a vote. The farmers and ranchers of this country deserve a vote. Now, they can deny the vote, at least temporarily, but if they think that is the end of the story, they are wrong. We are going to be back. And, look: If my colleagues are going to invoke rule XVI on this measure, when the underlying legislation has passed this body with 77 votes, and by that device prevent a vote, then things are going to get very tough around here. I know the rules of the Senate. If Members think they can ramrod things and deny farmers and ranchers in this country a vote on desperately needed disaster assistance, then this Senate is going to slow way down. My colleagues can use their rights and I will use mine. Let there be no doubt about what the result will be. This place is going to have a hard time functioning if there is not comity, if there is not fairness, and if people are denied a vote repeatedly. That is what is occurring.

The precedent is clear in this Senate. Virtually every disaster package has been legislation on an appropriations bill. Rule XVI was not invoked because it was recognized that is one of the few ways to achieve the result.

The Senator has the right to invoke rule XVI. This Senator has a right to object to unanimous consent agreements, to put the legislation on Vietnam PNTR, and to move to seek a vote. It is only fair the farmers and ranchers of this country, who have been devastated, get a vote. Let the Members vote. That is what the people were saying in this election. They want a process that is fair and that gets results for the American people.

I object.

Mr. President, unfortunately, the Republican leader just left the floor. We were about to be in a position to resolve this matter. I ask the leader's staff to ask the leader to return to the floor so we can resolve this.

Maybe for the interest of my colleagues, I will try to reflect on where we are. I had offered an amendment for disaster aid for farmers and ranchers. The chairman of the Budget Committee, within his rights, raised a budget point of order against my amendment. It was then suggested that rule XVI would be raised as well. We have had, over the last several hours, a series of discussions to find a way to resolve this matter. At this hour, it appears the best way to resolve it is to have a commitment that we would go to the Agriculture Appropriations bill tomorrow and try to do that in a tight timeframe of limited amendments, and that I would have a chance to offer the amendment at that time and other Senators' rights would be reserved, and that I would withdraw my amendment from this bill with the understanding that we would go to the Agriculture Appropriations bill tomorrow. That is what we had tentatively agreed to. I think we just have to have the leader indicate publicly that that is his understanding as well. Then we can break the gridlock here and proceed to finish Military Construction.

While we are waiting, I might indicate how much I appreciate the patience of the chairman and the ranking member of the Military Construction bill and their very constructive efforts to try to find a way out of this. I for one deeply appreciate it. I also very much appreciate the work of both the majority leader, Senator Frist, who has made his best efforts to try to resolve this matter, and our own leader, Senator Reid, for his assistance as well. Certainly a special thanks goes to Senator Bennett and ranking member Senator Kohl for their constructive efforts and their agreement to go to their bill tomorrow. I also thank Senator Dorgan, my colleague, for his efforts to try to move this matter along.

With that, I yield the floor and hope that we have a chance to hear from the majority leader, so we can start the process to unwind this and reach a conclusion.

Mr. President, I notice the majority leader has returned to the floor. I tried to recount for our colleagues the status of our discussion, and the understanding that we had reached, that I would withdraw my amendment from this bill with the understanding that we would go to the Agriculture Appropriations bill tomorrow and have a chance to offer it there. All Senators' rights would be reserved. That is the status of it. I just ask if that is the majority leader's understanding. If it is, I will then be willing to withdraw my amendment from the Military Construction bill and we can conclude that.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for being very constructive. I thank my friend from New Mexico for his zealous guarding of the rights of his chairmanship of his committee. I certainly recognize that position.

I think we have made significant progress. We can move to the Agriculture appropriations bill tomorrow. That is the place this amendment ought to be. I only offered it on this bill because we had no prospect of going to the Agriculture appropriations bill any time this year without this agreement.

I thank the majority leader. I thank very much the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, the very able Senator from Utah. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl. I very much thank the chairman of this committee, the Senator from Texas, and the Senator from California, the ranking member, who have been so constructive today. And again, special thanks to my colleague Senator Dorgan for his assistance throughout.

I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Conrad for his leadership, my colleague Senator Johnson, and so many others, Republicans and Democrats, who have worked together to try to construct a piece of legislation that would provide some disaster help for farmers, and then to try to get it through the Congress and get it to the President's desk for his signature.

This has been a long, tortuous trail. Twice before the Senate has passed disaster relief for family farmers--twice. Both times it went to a conference with the House. I was a conferee on both occasions. I was involved with my colleagues in attaching it to the appropriations bill as it went to a conference. We got to conference. Both times the President threatened to veto the legislation, to block it. And he got the conferees on the House side to require that it be taken out of the conference report. Therefore, this is the third attempt on the floor of the Senate to do this piece of legislation. And it is very important.

Let me talk for a moment about this issue of farming because we all come to work and we wear neckties and suits and take showers at the start of the day. Farmers take showers at the end of the day because their work is hard. They feed cattle. They plow the ground. They grease a tractor. They run a combine. They put up hay. They do all the things that represent very hard work out in the land, and they are economic all-stars.

The ability of the American family farmer to feed more and more people is pretty extraordinary. But they work very hard and they produce a product. If things cooperate, if they get decent weather, enough rain, the disasters don't come, the insects aren't there, then they produce a crop. They produce a kernel of corn, perhaps some wheat, a kernel of barley, some rice. What happens is the wheat gets puffed by a company someplace, after it gets hauled by railroad, and then it gets put in a box and sold as puffed wheat. The farmer gets almost nothing. The railroads take too much, and the box of puffed wheat costs an unbelievable amount of money.

The same is true with crisping rice. It goes into a box called Rice Krispies. The same is true with corn. They flake the corn, put it in a box, and call it corn flakes. The railroads get a lot of money for hauling that corn to market, the people who sell the corn flakes get a lot of profit, and the farmer gets almost nothing. That is what farming has always been about. But they only get the crop in the first place if they do not get wiped out by a natural disaster--whether disease, insects, or so on.

Now, what has happened in the last couple of years, particularly in our part of the country, the Dakotas were called the epicenter of a drought, the epicenter of a drought. So those farmers, who in the spring went out and planted their crops, discovered they did not have any crop growth at all. Nothing came up in those fields.

It is pretty unbelievable to drive by a field that is supposed to be a field of grain and see it look like a moonscape. I drove to Zeeland, ND, one day, a very small town just north of the South Dakota border. And as I drove into that town, to my left was a patch of ground that looked like moonscape--no vegetation at all. There had been no rain there. One hundred ranchers gathered in a small community hall in Zeeland, ND, to talk about what this meant to them. One after another, they stood up to talk about what it means when you don't get rain.

One fellow from another part of our country who had moved back to North Dakota said: I had never, ever understood why they measured rain in hundredths. How much rain did you get? Twenty hundredths, twenty- four hundredths. I never understood before why they measured rain in hundredths until I came to North Dakota, a State with 15 to 17 inches of annual rainfall in an entire year. And then what happens? It stops raining, and you have a drought and nothing grows; or it rains too much, and you get one-third of the annual rainfall in one day. We have had both happen. One happened the year before, in 2005; one happened in 2006.

Some will say: Well, you just come and talk about farming all the time. Family farmers this, family farmers that. There is a writer in North Dakota, a farmer, a rancher, down near Almont, I believe. His name is Rodney Nelson. He asks in some of his prose some very important questions: What is it worth to our country? What is it worth for a young person to know how to plow a field, to grease a tractor? What is it worth for a young person to know how to weld a seam, how to combine a field of grain? What is it worth to have a young person know how to build a lean-to, how to take care of cattle, how to care for livestock? What is it worth to have young people know how to work in the bitter cold and do chores in the morning in the bitter cold, or to be out in the fields when it is unbelievably hot, combining that field of grain? What is that worth? There is only one university in America where those studies are taught, and that is America's family farms.

What is it worth to us? Do we want to save those farmers when they run

through some tough times, when they reach a tough patch? That is what has happened here.

Always before our country has said: Do you know what. When you are out there alone, living under a yard light, and you and your family are trying to make a living and you get hit with a natural disaster, this country is going to help. This country wants to reach out a hand and say: You are not alone. We want to help you.

Well, in the new farm bills, they took out the disaster title. There ought to be one. I intend to offer legislation to put a disaster title back in the farm bills so we are not begging at the end of every session to try to provide some help to farmers who otherwise are going to go broke.

Let me describe, as my colleague has done, this picture of a soybean field in North Dakota. There are not any soybeans there. That is a field that is dead, with barely any green at all. Normally, these soybeans would be lush, filling that piece of ground, and would be a foot tall. But, as you can see, these plants are worthless. There is not much alive in that photograph.

I have talked to farmers who sold off their entire herds. I talked to a young farmer who built a herd of cattle for 3 years. It was his life's goal to take over from his parents. He built his herd for 3 years and was barely making it, and then this drought hit and he had nothing to feed his cattle. If you don't have anything to feed your cattle, those cows are going to market. His cows are gone. He is out of business.

Shown in this picture is a man from my State who was a rancher. His name is Frank Barnick. He is shown walking on a creekbed. It does not look like that. It looks like, again, a moonscape. That is a creekbed that would hold water for his cattle, but it is dry. Frank said this is the worst drought he has ever seen.

These people, Frank and his neighbors and friends, are not asking a lot from this country. They are asking if this country cares whether family farmers are able to live on the land and continue farming. They hope that the answer is yes and that this country understands farmers contribute something very important. Family farmers contribute something very important to this country. A fellow who I thought was a wonderful author, used to write in a book about the nurturing of family values in America. He always described that family values in America came from family farms, the seedbed of family values, and they rolled to small towns and big cities, nurturing the value system and culture along the way.

We have attempted time and time again to get some disaster aid for people who need help. We asked the President, in the middle of the drought this year, to come out and do a drought tour. He was not able to do that. I went back and recalled that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt came out for a drought tour. We don't have a lot of Presidents stop through North Dakota. When they do, we are enormously honored to have them join us and be a part of North Dakota.

I wanted to read you a couple of things that President Roosevelt said. He stopped in Huron, SD, exactly 70 years ago. Then he stopped in North Dakota--both on a drought tour, both on a train--and spoke to people. Here is what he said to our neighbors to the south in Huron, SD, on a drought inspection trip. He said:

No city in an agricultural country can exist unless the

farms are prosperous.

I understand our economy has grown in ways that make this less than an agricultural country, but it certainly has not been the case with respect to agricultural States, where a predominant part of our economic base is still agriculture and family farming.

Here is what else the President said in Huron, SD, 70 years ago, understanding that family farmers were having great trouble during that drought:

I have come out here to find you with your chins up,

looking toward the future with confidence and courage. I am

grateful to you for the attitude you are taking.

That is the only way you could ever farm. There isn't anybody who would decide to be a farmer if they didn't look forward to the future with hope. They plant a seed and hope. They hope what they planted will produce a crop. It is the only way farmers can exist.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt went to North Dakota 70 years ago on a drought tour, here is what he said:

But, when you come to this water problem through here, you

are up against two things. In the first place, you are up

against the forces of nature and, secondly, you are up

against the fact that man, in his present stage of

development, cannot definitely control those forces.

He continued:

Today, out here, I do not ask you to have courage and

faith. You have it. You have demonstrated that through a good

many years. I am asking, however, that you keep up that

courage and, especially, keep up the faith.

If it is possible for Government to improve conditions in

this State, Government will do it.

We hope that Nature is going to open the Heavens. When I

came out on the platform this morning and saw a rather dark

cloud, I said to myself, ``Maybe it is going to rain.'' Well,

it didn't. All I can say is, I hope to goodness it is going

to rain, good and plenty.

My friends, I want to tell you that I am glad I came here.

I want to tell you I am not going to let up until I can give

my best service to solving the problems of North Dakota.

Again, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 70 years ago to family farmers: If it is possible for Government to improve conditions, we will do that. He said to the farmers: You are not alone. We want to help.

Let's say that again today, let the Congress say that to our farmers: You matter. You make a difference to this country's future. Your contribution to our culture and our economy is important. This Congress has not forgotten that. We will remember it today by investing in the future and saying to family farmers: We want you to be able to continue to farm. We don't want you wandering, as you go into spring planting, whether you are going to have the ability to remain on the farm with your family, producing food for a hungry world.

We want to pass a disaster aid package, one that puts this Congress in the same position that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in 70 years ago, saying, if it is within the capability of this Government to help, we intend to help.

Again, let me compliment my colleague, Senator Conrad. I am pleased to work with him, as I have for many decades. This is an important amendment to offer now. While this is not the optimum place to offer this amendment, as this appropriations bill deals with different appropriations, we have not had the opportunity to do anything but this because we have not been given the opportunity to move this legislation separately. We offer it hoping for good will and for the support of others.

This is not partisan. It is bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats from farm country understand the importance and the value of doing this kind of legislation that says to family farmers: You matter to this country.

I yield the floor.

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.