Sanctions Policy Reform Act

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 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 rise today to join my very dear friend and colleague, Senator Craig of Idaho, as his principal cosponsor on legislation to reauthorize a law that has spawned a revolution in forest dependent communities in 42 States and in over 700 counties across the country. Our bill will reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000.

This bill is short and simple but also extraordinary: it renews the original law and its programs for 8 more years. It also makes some technical and grammatical corrections to the original law and adds an oversight report on some of the projects done under this Act. As we introduce this bill today in the Senate, our friends and colleagues in the House are introducing the exact same bill with the same, bi- partisan spirit.

The reason we can pursue reauthorization of such a far reaching law with such little language is because the folks that it affects, the forest dependent communities, as well as the educators, the county leaders and the environmentalists in those communities, have made this law work. The reason we want to reauthorize this legislation is because these same folks want to continue the work this law allows

them to do together, on federal and private lands, and in rural communities.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of2000 is sustaining rural communities as well as encouraging industry and creating jobs based on natural resources. If I may paraphrase a famous commercial to describe this legislation, I'd say:

Stabilization of payments to counties for roads and schools--millions of dollars; Additional investments and the creation of new jobs through forest related projects--thousands of projects; Improving cooperative relationships among the people that use and care for federal lands: Priceless.

Title I of the Act stabilizes funding for public education in rural communities. It also fortifies local government budgets that provide health and safety services in rural America, as well as maintains the transportation corridors that move people and material to and from forest communities.

Title II of the Act provides resources for community-based stewardship for local federal lands. By establishing Resource Advisory Committees, RACs, tasked with reviewing and recommending to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management projects to be completed on Federal lands that benefit the community and the federal lands associated with that RAC, this Act has resulted in over a thousand projects making Federal lands more environmentally healthy today than before this Act passed in 2000. RACs enlist community members representing environmental interests, recreations users, farmers, local officials and forest products industry. This collaborative planning of management of local Federal lands has put people to work building fish- friendly culverts; reducing hazardous fuel loads; enhancing picnic, camping and hiking facilities; and removing debris and noxious plant species.

The kinds of projects the RACs have supported are varied: watershed restoration and maintenance; wild life habitat restoration; native fisheries habitat enhancement; forest health improvements; wild land fire hazard reduction; control of noxious weeds; removal of trash and illegal dumps; road maintenance and obliteration; trail maintenance and obliteration; and campground maintenance.

Title III of the Act supports activities protecting federal infrastructure and the forest ecosystem. Fire Planning, emergency response, law enforcement and search and rescue services make federa1lands safe. They reinforce county government's commitment to the partnership between the Federal Government and local communities. These funds are being used to respond to forest fires conduct search and rescue missions and improve forest health while teaching at-risk children and rehabilitating prisoners in prison-work camp programs. Title III projects, like Title II projects, are also helping to develop cooperative projects between counties, local, State and Federal officials and agencies.

The Act's greatest financial footprint is felt in the West, but financial benefits flow to counties nationwide. Significant investment in Federal lands has taken or will take place: $121 million from Title II and $124 million from Title III. At least 1,168 Title II projects were approved during the Act's first two years.

Under the reauthorization we are sponsoring the payment amount will continue to be based on the average of timber receipts for the three top federal land timber production years: FY 1985 through FY 2000. Currently, on lands where there is no harvest and no safety net, the communities get no money. For those lands, funds will be provided from the general treasury. For others, there would be funds available, first from receipts but then from the general treasury. Still, for counties where the status quo is their best source of funds, they could stay with the status quo until they feel the need to use the safety net. No longer will there be an absolute a reliance on receipts, thus decreasing pressure on land managers to produce timber harvest for schools and counties. While there is widespread application of the Act, 86 percent of counties nationwide have opted for the ``stable payment;'' under the reauthorization bill, if a county that has been part of this Act would like to opt out it may do so. It is only fair to allow this, given that the county may have opted in by assuming the law would only last through 2006.

Very strong support exists across the nation from stakeholders for renewal of the Act past fiscal year 2006.

I urge my colleagues to work with me and my colleague across the aisle on this bi-partisan, bi-cameral effort to renew a law that is actually working on the ground.