Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2005

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined with Senator Lieberman in introducing the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005. This bill is nearly identical to a proposal we offered during the 108th Congress. It is designed to begin a meaningful and shared effort among the emission-producing sectors of our country to address the world's greatest environmental challenge--climate change.

The National Academy of Sciences reported:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere

as a result of human activities, causing surface air

temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over

the last several decades are likely mostly due to human

activities.

Again, ``temperatures are, in fact, rising.'' Those are the words of the National Academy of Sciences, a body created by the Congress in 1863 to provide advice to the Federal Government on scientific and technical matters. These comments were written after much thoughtful deliberation and should not be taken lightly. The Academy has a 140- year history and a strong reputation of service to the people of this great country.

In October 2003, in response to the alarming changes in the climate that are being reported worldwide, we were joined by a number of other Senators in the first offering of our proposal for addressing climate change for Senate consideration. We had a hard-fought debate and found ourselves eight votes short of achieving a majority in passage. Today, we resume what we finally can consider a worthy and necessary cause.

I state at the outset that this issue is not going away. This issue is one of transcendent importance outside the boundaries of the United States of America. If you travel to Europe today and visit with our European friends, you will find that climate change/Kyoto treaty are major sources of dissatisfaction on that side of the Atlantic with the United States of America and its policies. But far more important than that, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is real, that it is happening as we speak. The Arctic and Antarctic are the ``miner's canary'' of climate change, and profound and terrible things are happening at the poles, not to mention other parts of the world.

Democracies usually respond to crises when they are faced with them and, at least in the case of this Nation, we address problems and crises that confront us and we move on. We are not very good at long- term planning and long-term addressing of issues that face us in the future. The divisions concerning the issue of Social Security are clearly an example of what I just said.

If we do not move on this issue, our children and grandchildren are going to pay an incredibly heavy price because this crisis is upon us, only we do not see its visible aspects in all of its enormity.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, assuming the stewardship of the G-8, has made it his highest priority. He has very aptly pointed out: Suppose that all of the scientific opinion is wrong; suppose that the ice that is breaking up in the Antarctic in huge chunks is just something which is temporary; suppose that the glaciers receding in the Arctic at a higher rate than at any time in history is something that is a one-time deal; suppose that the melting of the permafrost in Alaska and the Inuit villages collapsing into the ocean is a one-time thing; suppose these increases in violent climate occurrences are all something that are just temporary aberrations; suppose that happens to be true and we have acted. Then the world and the Nation will be better off because we would have developed technologies which are cleaner. We would have taken actions to reduce what everybody agrees is harmful, and that is excess greenhouse gases. And the Nation and the world would be better off.

But suppose the scientists are right. Suppose that the National Academy of Sciences report that says, ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities[ . . . ]'' is right; suppose that Dr. Robert Corell, chair of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, assessing the economic impacts and consequences of the changing Arctic, and the Arctic Council, composed of the senior officials from the eight Arctic countries that reached the conclusion that the Arctic climate is changing rapidly; that over the past 50 years, temperatures across Alaska, Canada, and much of Russia have increased 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, with winter temperatures in these areas increasing by up to 7 degrees Fahrenheit; that in the past 30 years, the Arctic has lost an area of annual average sea ice larger than all of Arizona and Texas combined, with even stronger declines observed in summer sea ice; that mountain glaciers have also receded dramatically, and the snow cover season

has been shrinking; that greenhouse gas concentration continues to rise; and even larger changes in climate are projected for the next 100 years; suppose they are right.

The observed warming is already having significant impacts on Arctic people and ecosystems. Much larger projected climate changes will result in even greater impacts on the people in the Arctic and beyond. Increasing coastal erosion threatens many Alaskan villages. Warming is also affecting the oil industry. The number of days in which oil exploration and extraction activities on the tundra are allowed under Alaska Department of Natural Resources standards has been halved over the past 30 years.

The projected changes in Arctic climate will also have global implications. Amplified global warming, rising sea levels, and potential alterations in ocean circulation patterns that can have large-scale climatic effects are among the global concerns. Melting Arctic snow and ice cause additional absorption of solar energy by the darker land surface, amplifying the warming trend at the global scale.

Recently, the Australians have predicted that the Great Barrier Reef will be dead by 2050. What is the impact of coral reefs around the world being bleached and dying on the food chain?

Dr. William Fraser, president of Polar Oceans Research Group, testified that mountain ranges flanking the southeastern boundary of the glacier, not visible 30 years ago, are emerging into full view. The amount of ice-free land along the entire southwest coast of Anver Island has been redefined by glacier retreat. Populations of the ice- avoiding Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins have increased by 55 to 90 percent.

The coral reefs are the most biologically diverse ecosystem of the ocean, as we all know. Almost 1,000 coral species currently exist. With the majority of human populations living in coastal regions, many people depend on living coral reef for food and protection from storm surges.

Dr. Lara Hansen stated:

While the Great Barrier Reef is widely considered to be one

of the best managed reef systems in the world, local

conservation actions will not be sufficient to protect coral

reefs from the effects of climate change. To date, studies

indicate that the best chance for successful conservation in

the face of climate change is to limit the temperature

increase. . . .

ADM James Watkins, who was chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, testified that climate change impacts every topic in the report from the health and safety of humans, the health of environment and fisheries to the distribution of marine organisms, including pathogens. Admiral Watkins, former Chief of Naval Operations and former Secretary of Energy, not a renowned environmentalist, went on to say climate change is a serious problem, and it could affect all of the recommendations from the report.

There will be people who will come to this floor and say that climate change is a myth; it is not serious. They will find a scientist, they will find some study group, some of them funded by people with special interests here, but I hope that we will pay attention to Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has made climate change one of the two issues he hopes to address during his presidency of the G-8. This issue I believe is very well understood by a majority of scientists in America.

I have a couple of pictures I will show. I see my colleague from Connecticut is in the Chamber.

Recently, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated that he personally believes that the world has ``already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.''

He went on to say:

Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of

opportunity, and it is closing rapidly. There is not a moment

to lose.

The International Climate Change Task Force, chaired by Senator Snowe and the Right Honorable Stephen Byers, Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom, stated in 1 of its 10 recommendations concerning climate change that ``all developed countries introduce mandatory cap- and-trade systems for carbon emissions and construct them to allow for future integration into a single global market.'' That is already being done in Europe as we speak, which is the substance of Senator Lieberman's and my legislation.

States are acting. Nine States in the East have signed on as full participants in this initiative to elevate climate mitigation strategies from voluntary initiatives to a regulatory program. The State of California has approved a new State regulation aimed at decreasing carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. The States are way ahead of us. I believe one of the reasons for that is because special interests are less active in the States.

This is a chart that shows that the CO2 data has gone up from, as we can see, 1860 to 2001.

This is a picture of the Arctic sea ice loss. The red outline is 1979. This was the Arctic sea ice, which is outlined in red. We can see the size of the Arctic sea ice today. I made a visit with some of my colleagues to the Arctic. We took a ship and stopped at where this glacier was 5 years ago, traveling a number of miles and saw where that glacier is today.

I want to emphasize again, the Arctic and the Antarctic are the miner's canary of global warming because of the thinness of the atmosphere there.

This chart is sea level changes in areas of Florida that would be inundated with a sea level rise.

I usually have--it is probably not here--I usually have a picture of Mount Kilimanjaro, which is known to many of us.

This is a chart of coral bleaching which is taking place as we speak.

If I can add a little parochialism, if I can show a picture of Lake Powell in Arizona, it has been drying up since 1999, draining Lake Powell to well below its high watermark. It is at an alltime low in its seventh year. The lake has shrunk to 10 percent of its capacity.

The signs of climate change are all around us. We need to act. We need to develop technologies and make it economically attractive for industry to find it in their interest to develop technology which will reduce and bring into check the greenhouse gas emissions in the world.

We need to do a lot of things, but a cap and trade, which would put an end to the increase of greenhouse gases and a gradual reduction, is an integral part.

Finally, I would like to return to my other argument in closing.

Suppose the Senator from Connecticut and I are deluded, that all of this scientific evidence, all these opinions, people such as Admiral Watkins in the oceans report, the National Academy of Sciences, the literally hundreds of people in the scientific community with whom Senator Lieberman and I have met and talked are wrong.

Here is the picture of Kilimanjaro in 1912, 1970, and 2000.

Suppose we are deluded, that we are tree-hugging environmentalists who have taken leave of our senses and are sounding a false alarm to the world, and we go ahead and put in a cap and trade, we encourage technologies to be developed and funded, some by the Federal Government in the form of pure research, and we do put a cap on the greenhouse gases, we negotiate an alternate Kyoto Treaty with our friends throughout the world--140 nations are signatories to the Kyoto Treaty-- and we join on the provision India and China have to be included and other provisions which we have every right to demand, and we start moving forward on this issue and we are wrong, that the year after next, everything is fine in the world? Then we will have made probably a significant contribution to the betterment of the world and the Earth by reducing greenhouse gases, by developing cleaner technologies, by doing good things, and then Senator Lieberman and I will come to the floor and apologize for sounding this alarm.

But suppose, Mr. President, that we are right. Suppose the National Academy of Sciences is right. Suppose the eight-nation research council that is deeply alarmed at these effects in both the Arctic and Antarctic is wrong; suppose Admiral Watkins is wrong; suppose the Australian Government is wrong when it says the Great Barrier Reef is going to be dead by 2050, and we have done nothing? We have done relatively nothing besides gather additional data and make reports. That is what the U.S. national policy is today: gather information and make reports. I

would argue that is a pretty heavy burden to lay on future generations of Americans.

I welcome the participation, friendship, and commitment of my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article entitled ``Arid Arizona Points to Global Warming as Culprit,'' and a response to Senator Inhofe's floor statement on January 4, 2005.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Feinstein, Snowe, Durbin, Chafee, Lautenberg, Murray, Nelson, Corzine, Dayton, Cantwell, and Kerry.

Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Lieberman, again, and I would like to quote again from Prime Minister Blair, who announced that action on global warming will be his first priority as Chair of the G-8. He has taken a leadership role, choosing to take action and not to hide behind the uncertainties that the science community will soon resolve.

The Prime Minister made it clear in a recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said:

. . . if America wants the rest of the world to be part of

the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda too. .

. .

It is past time for our country to show leadership in addressing the world's greatest environmental challenge, climate change.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005. I am pleased to have worked with my cosponsor, Senator Kerry, in developing this bill, which will enable our

Nation to improve the way we manage our valuable, yet vulnerable, coastal resources.

More than three decades ago, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, or CZMA, in response to concerns over growing threats to our Nation's coastal environments and resources. While this act has been instrumental in facilitating better coastal planning and management, the September 2004 Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reminded us that the pressures facing our coastal regions have greatly increased since the CZMA was enacted.

America's coastal zone comprises only 17 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, yet nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal areas. Attracted by economic opportunity as well as beaches and other recreational amenities, more than 3,600 people are moving to this area each year. This relatively small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea ports, including most of our largest cities. At the same time, it provides critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals, ranging from rare microscopic organisms to commercially valuable fish stocks.

The CZMA established a unique State-Federal framework for facilitating sound coastal planning, and any amendments to this act must uphold and strengthen this arrangement. Under the authorities in the CZMA, coastal States can elect to participate in a voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. The 34 participating States and territories create individualized coastal zone management plans, taking their State's specific needs and problems into account, and then receive Federal matching funds to help implement their plans. This systems respects states' rights while empowering them to better identify and meet their environmental, social, and economic goals for their coastal areas. As a result of this program's success, more than 99.9 percent of the United States 95,376 shoreline miles are managed under this system.

Even though our coastal States and territories have benefitted from this vital CZMA program, our coastal areas continue to face increasing demands to expand working waterfronts as well as increasing rates of nonpoint source water pollution. These persistent threats have outpaced the ability of many States to keep up with coastal zone conservation. Although the States are currently taking action to address this problem under existing authorities, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 would encourage them to take additional voluntary steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program.

The coastal community initiative would provide participating States with the funding and flexibility necessary to deal with a broad array of specific nonpoint source pollution problems.

The State of Maine, like many coastal States, is working to reduce nonpoint source pollution programs, and its efforts have led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine needs to do more and is looking forward to this new opportunity.

The Coastal Community Program authorized in this bill would also aide States in developing and implementing creative, community-based initiatives to deal with problems other than nonpoint source pollution. It would increase Federal and State support of local grassroots programs that target coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal resources and activities.

The bill I offer today would reauthorize the CZMA and make a number of improvements to strengthen our Nation's coastal management system. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, enabling States to better achieve their coastal management goals. The bill authorizes $137.5 million for fiscal year 2006 and increases the authorization levels up to $160,000,000 for fiscal year 2010. This increase in funding would enable the States' coastal programs to achieve their full potential.

Within these authorized funding levels, this bill would increase authorization for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System to $18 million in fiscal year 2006 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2010. This system is a network of reserves around the country that support coastal science, research, education and conservation, and they are operated as a cooperative Federal-State partnership. Additional authorizations, including funds to support construction at designated reserve sites, will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves.

In this bill, we have tried to rectify a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program. The funding for this program is based on administrative grants, under section 306 of the CZMA, in which the amount of funding for each State is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and population of each State. However, since 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a million a $2 million cap per State on administrative grants in an attempt to treat all participating States equally.

Even while overall program funding has increased in recent years, this arbitrary cap has remained in place, and by fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached it. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population. Despite appropriators' desire for equal treatment, it is simply not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a $2 million cap, despite overall program funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, progress in some of the larger States--with some of the most pressing coastal management problems--has stagnated.

This bill contains new language that would direct the Secretary of Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases in annual administrative grant funding for each State. It further 2 requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase. I must thank my former colleague, Senator Hollings, for his many years of effort and cooperation in helping us develop this new grant funding allocation language. His leadership and commitment to all ocean and coastal conservation matters continues to guide our efforts today.

The State-Federal Coastal Zone Management Program has a long record of helping States achieve their coastal area management goals, and having clean, safe, and productive coastlines ultimately serves the best interest of our Nation. This program enjoys widespread support among coastal States, as demonstrated by the many Commerce Committee members who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years.

I am pleased to introduce this legislation to provide our coastal States with the funding and management frameworks necessary to meet the ever-increasing conservation and development challenges facing our coastal communities, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005, a bill that would forever change our understanding of the marine environment.

As our Nation saw with the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami only weeks ago, the oceans are alive and ever-changing. While our Nation's coast escaped the direct reach of this recent tragedy, it reminds us that those who live near or along our Nation's 95,000-plus miles of shoreline need to be able to monitor a range of ocean conditions and quickly assess ocean-based threats, including tsunamis, hurricanes, harmful algal blooms, and pollution. The purpose of this bill is to fulfil these needs for ocean and coastal observation and warning systems surrounding the United States.

This bi-partisan, science-based bill would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to establish and maintain an integrated network of ocean observing and communication systems around our Nation's coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and other variables--that are essential to marine science and resource management as well as maritime transportation, safety, and commerce.

As Chair of the Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and as a representative of a state with more than 5,000 miles of shoreline, I want to ensure that the citizens of Maine, and all coastal states, have the tools they need to monitor and assess what is happening off their shores. The State of Maine has a strong and proud history rooted in our connection to the sea, as do other coastal states, and our coastal communities are highly dependent on the fisheries resources, coastal habitats, tourist destinations, safe harbors, and other essential services connected to the sea. The people of this country's livelihoods are directly linked to how well we understand and adapt to changing ocean conditions.

Our ability to understand ocean dynamics took a great leap forward in 2001, when marine scientists and educators launched an innovative partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS, to start gathering a range of ocean data on a large regional scale. This prototype system, which started with ten observation buoys, has transformed how we observe and track ocean conditions over time. The GoMOOS system takes ocean and surface condition measurements on an hourly basis through a network of linked buoys, and these real-time measurements can be monitored and accessed by the public via the GoMOOS Web site. The unprecedented geographical range and frequency of measurements revolutionized our knowledge about the Gulf of Maine, and GoMOOS continues to provide a tremendous public service for New England.

Of course, the need to access this type of ocean information is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. Similar observing systems are planned or developed in other coastal regions, many in conjunction with NOAA, universities, and State agencies. Data from these independent regional systems, however, are often incompatible with data from other regions, making it difficult to compile, manage, process, and communicate data across networks. As a result, there is a possibility that these systems would be unable to link their data and develop a comprehensive picture of coastal and ocean conditions around the Nation.

The Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005 seeks to rectify this situation by integrating ocean and coastal observation efforts in cooperation with NOAA. This Act would encourage further development of the regional systems, enable their data to be linked through a national network, provide information that anyone could access, and facilitate timely public warnings of hazardous ocean conditions. It would authorize the National Ocean Research Leadership Council to have general oversight for research and

development of this national undertaking. This Council would establish an interagency program office that would plan and coordinate operational activities and budgets, and NOAA would be the lead Federal agency charged with ensuring that this national network of regional observation associations, such as GoMOOS and others under development, effectively integrates and utilizes ocean data for the benefit of the American public.

As the U.S. Ocean Commission made clear in its final report issued in September 2004, ocean and coastal observations are a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and commerce, and the potential uses of this system are nearly unlimited. For example, fisheries scientists and managers can use ocean data to better predict ocean productivity and use this information to facilitate ecosystem management. Fishermen, sailors, shippers, Coast Guard search-and-rescue units, and other seafarers can better monitor sea conditions to more safely navigate rough seas. Ocean scientists and regulators can better predict and respond to marine pollution, harmful algal bloom outbreaks, or other hazardous conditions and issue prompt alerts to potentially vulnerable communities. Clearly, anyone who uses and depends upon the ocean stands to benefit from this integrated system.

I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Inouye, for contributing to this legislation and supporting this national initiative. Of course, our current and expanding ocean observation and communication system would not be possible without the work of dedicated professionals in the ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities-- they have taken the initiative to develop the grassroots regional observation systems as well as contribute to this legislation. Thanks to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will continue to provide a tremendous service to the American ocean-dependent public.

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

Mr. President, I have introduced what I believe to be a very important piece of legislation that the Senate will consider this year, dealing with an issue that is certainly on the minds of many Americans and No. 1 on the minds of some Americans. It is on the question of immigration reform and dealing with it in an appropriate fashion, to create a transparency in the process, and to begin to end and identify the 8 million to 12 million undocumented foreign nationals currently in our country.

Over the last 5 years, I have worked in a bipartisan way with many of my colleagues, and literally hundreds of organizations around the country, in focusing on a specific area of immigration, and that is the H-2A area, or those who work in agricultural employment.

What we have discovered over the course of time is a broken system, which in large part now allows the possibility of well over a million foreign nationals working illegally in this country, but working in an economy where they are desperately needed to bring the food products from our fields, to process those products and put them on the shelves of the American consuming public. As a result of that great concern, I, working with my colleague Senator Ted Kennedy in the Senate, with Congressman Howard Berman and Congressman Chris Cannon over in the House for some time, have produced legislation that brings all sides of this very diverse and oftentimes very contentious issue together, to therefore be able to offer tonight a piece of legislation that has at this moment nearly 40 Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, supporting it; whereas last year, identical legislation had over 63 Senators, and we believe we will have that same support again this year.

Americans, after 9/11, cried out to the Congress and to our Government, saying: What is wrong? Why were people allowed to come to our country who then turned on us to kill our citizens? Why did we let that happen?

Well, we learned that the immigration policies of our country were largely broken and that the Congress, over years and years, had turned its back on the issue, either not funding immigration appropriately or not enforcing the laws already on the books regarding immigration.

As a result of that, it is now estimated that there are between 8 million to 12 million foreign nationals living in this country, the vast majority of them working and living in law-abiding, peaceful ways, but working here to better themselves and their families for their own human well-being. We did find out there were a few who were here to do evil things to Americans.

In the legislation I bring to the floor tonight, in legislation we call the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefit and Security Act, I focus rather narrowly on what is believed to be about 1.6 million of the total number, to recognize that clearly the vast majority of them are here for peaceful purposes, to better themselves and their families, and, in the meantime, cause American agriculture to work as effectively and efficiently as it does.

Oftentimes, these men and women do work that American citizens do not want to do or will not do--toiling in the hot fields of American agriculture day in and day out, dirty, tough work, but seeing it as an opportunity for themselves and an opportunity for their children to have a better life.

In so failing to recognize that need, we have oftentimes caused them to live in the back alleys and the shadows of America in an illegal status, but we still rely heavily on them for the services they provide.

Americans need and expect a stable, predictable, legal workforce in American agriculture, and consumers in our country deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply. Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in line for the jobs that are available with a fair market wage, and our legislation does that. All workers deserve decent treatment and protection of basic rights under the law, and our legislation does that. American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders, a safe homeland, and a government that works, and our legislation helps accomplish those three very important goals.

Yet we are threatened on all fronts because of a growing shortage now of legal workers in American agriculture. Last year, in 2 of the 12 months, we were net importers of agricultural food products. For the first time in the history of our country that happened. I grew up being told--and most of us did--that because of our great American agriculture always being able to feed us, we were a secure, safe nation, and our food supply was such that we would never be dependent upon foreign interests to feed the American consumer.

Last year it happened 2 out of 12 months that we grew dependent. This year, USDA tells us that we will break even at about 50-50. There will be no surplus agriculture trade. We will be importing as much as we are exporting, and that will be a historic first for our Nation.

What it tells me, as someone who grew up in American agriculture, is that agriculture as an economy is becoming increasingly fragile. It no longer has the strength or the dynamics it once had. It grows increasingly dependent on the high cost of inputs--energy, equipment, other supplies necessary to produce the bounty of the American farm field. But one of those key inputs is labor--labor that is stable, labor that you know will be there, and, most importantly, labor that can get the job done at the right time,

when the crop in the field is ripe and ready to harvest.

That labor pool is largely undocumented today. It is estimated that anywhere from 72 to 75 percent of those who work in American agriculture today are undocumented foreign nationals; in other words, illegal. And yet they toil in the fields, they pick our food, they help prepare it through the processing plants to get it to the consumer's shelf.

If in our effort to protect our borders and to create a law enforcement community that can apprehend a person who has entered this country illegally, if all of that happens and we do not create a system that stabilizes and provides a legal foreign national workforce, we could literally collapse American agriculture.

We are working at trying to protect our borders. We have invested heavily in it for the last good number of years. We just passed an intelligence reform bill in the latter part of the last session of the 108th Congress dealing closely with our borders. Members on the House side are ready to introduce new forms of legislation to tighten up and allow the driver's license to become a more secure legal documentation--an American citizen versus one who would not be.

I support nearly all of those things because they are the right thing to do for America to reclaim herself and to control her borders. But at the same time, there is a legitimate and responsible need to recognize the importance--the critical importance--of foreign nationals in our workforce helping to provide for our economy.

In the late nineties, we were near 100-percent employment in our country. Anyone who wanted to work could work and was working. Those who were not probably either did not want to or could not. Yet during that time, we were still employing an estimated 8 million foreign nationals in our country. That is not a negative, that is the character of a great country. That is the character of a great economy and a strong economy.

It is also that diversity that has produced the great American way, the idea of the American dream, the phenomenal hybrid vigor of a diverse character that is this country and has always been. And American agriculture has been a part of that. Those who toil in American agriculture have been a big part of that.

What we do today by this legislation is reach out and attempt to recognize those who are here in an undocumented way and cause them to come forward to be recognized, to have a background check done, to make sure they are not law violators or felons who are here for some other purpose. If they have been here and worked a period of 100 days since January 1, 2005, we will provide for them a temporary green card and then allow them to work and earn the right for permanent work status in our country.

To me, that seems fair and responsible. All of the parties involved in American agriculture today from the workforce to the producer themselves, they, too, agree that is a fair and responsible fashion. It is not giving anything away. It is attempting to correct a problem. It is doing the background checks. It is making sure we have a legal and legitimate workforce so that as we plug all of these holes and change the character of a broken immigration law, we do so without collapsing the very economy that feeds our country, recognizing that they became too dependent as agricultural producers on a workforce that was not legal.

So we do not just wipe the workforce away. We attempt to identify it, shape it, and cause it to be legal and do so in a responsible fashion. That is clearly what our legislation does. That is why 63 Senators supported it last year, and well over 100 in the House were cosponsors of it. We are working hard at this very moment to pass this legislation, to get it to the President's desk, and recognize that it may be a template, it may be a pilot for others to look at for a more comprehensive approach toward immigration reform.

There is no question in my mind that our immigration laws are broken, and I am not going to stand here tonight and suggest I have the wisdom to fix it all. But I and others and hundreds of organizations and interest groups from around this country have spent the last 5 years trying to solve this problem.

When we started, many of us were 180 degrees apart. Slowly but surely we came together out of need, the clear recognition of the necessity of providing a legal, recognizable, and stable workforce for American agriculture.

I do not think any citizen in our country would sleep well if they knew that a majority of our foodstuffs were imported, if they knew that we were dependent upon foreign nations and their producers for our food supply.

I think they would grow frustrated over the risk that would be at hand there, the stability, the availability, the safety issue. Many have suggested that if we are going to have a terrorist attack again some day, one of the approaches terrorists might use would be to attack our food supply.

If we control our workforce, if we produce it here, the possibility of that happening is considerably lessened. That goes right back to the old historic belief that a nation that can feed itself and its people is a nation that is inherently stable, and without question the produce of the American farm has allowed us to be that generation after generation, war after war.

We are now at a very fine point and balance in our Nation's history where this year we will zero out that old historic belief of stability. We will be importing as much as we are exporting. So American agriculture deserves our attention.

The people who labor there deserve our attention and respect. They deserve to be treated fairly as we would expect all people in our country to be, to have proper conditions and proper wages and to be recognized for the quality of work they do, instead of simply shoving them into the shadows in the back streets of America and denying they are there but knowing that we need them. That is an interesting contradiction in the current immigration laws in our country and America knows it and has reacted accordingly.

It is why our President says immigration reform is critical and necessary and has proposed ways to accomplish it. It is why it is in the top list of issues and concerns that most Americans hold about what Government ought to be doing to create a safer, stronger America, from controlling our borders to an effective law enforcement system, to assuring that we know those who are within our borders and why they are here and what their intent is. That is all part of the agricultural jobs bill we introduce tonight, the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefit and Security Act of 2005.

I am proud that 40 Senators, nearly 50-50 in partisan split, have already endorsed this legislation. We will strive for that number of 60-plus again. In doing so, I will ask my colleagues to help us bring this bill to the floor very early in this session, to debate it, to pass it out, to work with our House colleagues and to put it on the President's desk. I believe it is a positive and necessary start in marching down the road toward comprehensive immigration reform.

To do anything less than we are proposing is once again to do the very thing we have done for well over a decade, and that is to turn our back on the problem and the issue, to know it is there but to deny it exists, and then to have a broken system produce the crisis that occurred on 9/11.

We are a better country than that, and this Senate is a more responsible legislative body than that.

So tonight I bring to my colleagues what I think is a major first step in immigration reform necessary and important to protecting our borders, to making sure we are secure at home, to stabilizing a food supply, to assuring that American agriculture has a predictable, stable workforce, and to say to all at hand that those who come here to toil, in the benefit of the American economy, will be treated in a fair, just, and responsible way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the recent shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for ernporary or seasonal non-agricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to many small businesses in my home state of Maine, particularly those in the hospitality sector that rely on these seasonal workers to supplement their local employees during the height of the tourism season.

On January 4, a mere three months into fiscal year 2005, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, announced that it would immediately stop accepting applications for H-2B visas because the annual statutory cap of 66,000 visas had been met. In other words, many employers who require temporary workers in the spring, summer, or fall will be unable to hire such workers because all 66,000 H-2B visas already will have been issued within the first few months of the fiscal year. Once again, Maine's employers will be left out in the cold, disadvantaged by the simple fact of their later tourism season.

Without these visas, employers will be unable to hire enough workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels. Last year, unable to locate enough American workers willing and able to take these jobs, and without temporary foreign workers to fill the gap, many business owners were forced to initiate stop-gap measures that were neither ideal nor sustainable in the long term. Many of these businesses fear that, this year, they will have to decrease their hours of operation during what is their busiest time of year. This would translate into lost jobs for American workers, lost income for American businesses, and lost tax revenue from those businesses. These losses will be significant, and they can be avoided.

Today, I am pleased to join Senators Mikulski and Gregg, along with several other of my distinguished colleagues, in introducing the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005. Similar to legislation that I cosponsored last year, as well as legislation that I have introduced in the current Congress, this bill would exclude from the cap returning workers who were counted against the cap within the past 3 years. This legislation also seeks to address the inequities in the current system by limiting the number of H-2B visas that can be issued in the first 6 months of the fiscal year to no more than 33,000 visas, or one half of the total number of visas available under the cap. By allocating visas equally between each half of the year, employers across the country, operating both in the winter and summer seasons, will have a fair and equal Opportunity to hire these much-needed workers.

In addition, this legislation includes important new anti-fraud provisions that will strengthen our ability to detect, prevent, and deter, fraud by those who would seek to abuse the H-2B program. These include sanctions for employers who are found to have misrepresented II If facts on an H-2B petition, and the creation of a Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee of $150 for each H-2B petition. Similar to anti-fraud fees charged in other visa categories, funds raised from this fee will be placed in an account with the U.S. Treasury and made available to the agencies involved in processing H-2B visas--CIS, the Department of Labor, and the Department of State--to educate and train employees to recognize and protect against fraud in the visa applicant process.

I believe that this anti-fraud fee serves a worthy goal, and that the government agencies should have the resources they need to ensure the integrity of the H-2B visa application process. However, I am concerned about the impact that a fee of this size, in addition to the filing fees that employers already pay, may have on many smaller businesses. I intend to examine this issue further in order to ensure that smaller businesses are not unfairly impacted by this provision.

We must act quickly on this legislation, or we will be too late to help thousands of American businesses that need our help now. We cannot be content to say: ``It's too late for this year; maybe next year.'' It is true that comprehensive, long-term solutions may be necessary, but we have immediate needs as well. This problem demands immediate solutions.

In my home state of Maine, the economic impact of this visa shortage will be harmful and widespread. When people think of Maine, what often comes to mind is its rugged coastline, picturesque towns and villages, and its abundant lakes and forests. Not surprisingly, tourism is the state's largest industry. Temporary and seasonal workers play an important role in this very important industry.

Unfortunately, there are not enough American workers willing and able to fill the thousands of jobs necessary to provide the level of service that Maine's visitors have come to expect. Over the years, seasonal workers have filled this gap, becoming an integral part of Maine's tourism and hospitality industry. In Fiscal Year 2003, the last time Maine's employers were able to fully utilize the H-2B program, Maine employed more than 3,000 seasonal workers. The majority of these individuals worked in the State's resorts, inns, hotels, and restaurants. Many are people who have returned to the same employer summer after summer.

Let me emphasize that employers are not permitted to hire these foreign workers unless they can prove that they have tried, and failed, to locate available and qualified American workers through advertising and other means. As a safeguard, current regulations require the U.S. Department of Labor to certify that such efforts have occurred before CIS will process the visa applications. In Maine, as in other States, our state Department of Labor takes the lead in ensuring that employers have taken sufficient steps to try to find local workers to fill the positions. Unless and until more H-2B visas are made available, many seasonal jobs will remain unfilled and American businesses will suffer.

A similar situation faces Maine's forest products industry, which contributes approximately $5.6 billion annually to Maine's economy. In 2003, more than 600 temporary workers--mostly from Canada--were employed as forestry workers in Maine. Many work in remote areas of the state where there are not enough Americans able to take these jobs. By some estimates, these foreign workers account for as much as 30-40 percent of the wood fiber that supplies paper and saw mills throughout Maine and the Northeast. This number represents roughly 4.8 million tons of wood annually. With an already significant shortage in the wood supply, the loss of these temporary workers poses a serious threat to the industry and to Maine's economy. With fewer workers available to bring wood out of the forest and into mills, supplies will dwindle, prices will continue to rise, and mills may be forced to curtail production, or even temporarily discontinue operations. If this happens, it is American workers that may lose their jobs.

The effects of the H-2B visa shortage are not limited to the tourism and forest products industries, however. It will also be felt by fisheries and lobstermen, junior league hockey and minor league baseball teams. It win affect small businesses and large, visitors and locals, young and old, from Maine to Maryland, to Wyoming and Alaska.

Mr. President, the shortage of nonimmigrant temporary or seasonal worker visas is a problem that must be addressed, and soon. I believe that this legislation offers a workable short-term solution, and I urge us to move forward. We must resist the tendency to let this problem, and the people who are affected by it, become entangled in the larger debate about our Nation's

immigration policies. This is not about the number of immigrants we should allow to come to the United States each year, or what to do with those who violate our immigration laws. It is about temporary workers who, for the most part, respect our laws, go home at the end of their authorized stay, and in many cases, return again next year to provide services that benefit our Nation's economy. It is about American businesses that rely on these workers to take jobs that many Americans do not want. It is about the economic impact that will be felt across the Nation if these businesses are unable to hire temporary workers. We need to solve this problem now, before it is too late and our economy is harmed and jobs lost.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act being introduced by Senator Mikulski today. This legislation offers a measured approach to provide needed relief to the many small businesses that have been struggling to find enough employees to operate during seasonal spikes in workload. Small businesses that are seasonal often need a large number of employees for a short portion of the year, but cannot afford to retain the same number of people as full-time, year-round employees. They instead must rely on temporary workers to fill the gap in their high season. In my home State of Maryland, for example, our seafood processors are busy in the summer and early fall, but have very little work in the winter. To accommodate this changing need, they hire college students and local residents as extra workers in the summer. But even with those workers they often find themselves short-staffed. So they turn to temporary employees who are willing to leave their home countries for a few months to come to the U.S. and work.

Specifically, the bill being introduced today will allow anyone who has had an H-2B visa for one of the last 3 years to return this summer or next if an employer petitions for them to do so. Importantly, employers still must demonstrate that they have tried and failed to find available, qualified U.S. citizens to fill these jobs before they file an H-2B visa application. In addition, the bill would ensure that our summer employers are not disadvantaged by allowing no more than half of the 66,000 visas to be allocated in the first half of the year. Finally, the bill imposes antifraud fees on employers who willfully misrepresent any statement on their H-2B petition and requires the Department of Homeland Security to file reports on the demographics of those utilizing the H-2B program.

Any changes to our immigration laws must balance the interests of U.S. citizens and our economy while providing a fair, legal framework for those seeking to come to our Nation from other countries. For example, our current immigration laws already contain several general reasons an alien seeking admission into the United States may be denied entry: security and terrorist concerns, health-related grounds, criminal history, public charge, i.e., indigence, seeking to work without proper labor certification, illegal entry and/or immigration law violations, lack of proper documents, ineligibility for citizenship, and previous removal. Ensuring the safety of our country requires preserving these categories.

This legislation would leave this existing framework intact. It simply provides a fair and equitable means of distributing a very scarce number of visas so that all employers who require extra assistance during one season of the year may obtain that assistance. We must resist the temptation to let the H-2B situation and the small businesses affected by it become entangled in the larger debate over immigration reform. Workers who use H-2B visas come to the U.S. for a temporary period of time and are required to leave when that time period has run. These workers respect our laws, work hard, provide services that benefit our economy, and then return to their families at the end of the season. For their sake and that of the small, seasonal businesses that rely on them, we need to resolve this H-2B crisis soon.

Without this fix, our seafood processors cannot operate at full capacity. That becomes a problem for the rest of the seafood industry, including our watermen, who will be forced to curtail their fishing because of an insufficient number of locations to process their catches. In the end, the people who suffer are not the seafood processors or the temporary workers but the watermen who cannot feed their families. This bill provides the assistance necessary to keep our watermen, seafood processors, and a number of other industries such as landscapers, pool operators, and summer camps working at full capacity this summer. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. From the shore, our oceans seem vast and limitless, but I fear that we often overlook the impacts our actions have on the sea and its resources. The Act that I am introducing today with my friends and colleagues, Senators Stevens, Cantwell, Snowe, Kerry, and Lautenberg, focuses on one particular impact that goes unnoticed by many: marine debris. I am proud to say that the Senate unanimously passed this bill in the 108th Congress, and we look for swift action on this legislation again this year.

In a high-tech era of radiation, carcinogenic chemicals, and human- induced climate change, the problem of the trash produced by ocean- going vessels or litter swept out to sea must seem old-fashioned by comparison. Sea garbage would seem to be a simple issue that surely cannot rise to the priority level of the stresses our 21st century civilization places on the natural environment.

Regrettably, that perception is wrong. While marine debris includes conventional ``trash,'' it also includes a vast array of additional materials. It is discarded or lost fishing gear. It is cargo washed overboard. It is abandoned equipment from our commercial fleets. Nor does the ``low-tech'' nature of solid refuse diminish its deadly impact on the creatures of the sea. Whether an animal dies from a immune system weakened by toxic chemicals, or drowns entangled in a discarded fishing net, the result is the same--and in many cases, preventable.

Global warming, disease, and toxic contamination of our seas has already stressed these fragile ecosystems. These threats have been described in last year's Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which also dedicated an entire chapter to the threats posed by marine debris. The bill we introduce today adopts the measures recommended by the Commission to help remove man-made marine debris from the list of ocean threats. It also follows the recommendations of the International Marine Debris Conference held in my home State of Hawaii in 2000.

The bill establishes a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, directs the U.S. Coast Guard to improve enforcement of laws designed to prevent ship-based pollution from plastics and other garbage, reinvigorates an interagency committee on marine debris, and improves our research and information on marine debris sources, threats, and prevention.

In Hawaii, we are able to see the impacts of marine debris more clearly than most because of the convergence caused by the North Pacific Tropical High. Atmospheric forces cause ocean surface currents to converge on Hawaii, bringing with them the vast amount of debris floating throughout the Pacific. Since 1996, a total of 484 tons of debris have been removed from coral reefs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which is also home to many endangered marine species. But the job is not done, because more arrives daily. In 2004 alone, the program removed over 125 tons of debris.

I am pleased that the coordinated approach taken to address the threats posed by marine debris in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands has provided a model for the nation. NOAA's Pacific Islands Region Fisheries Science Center is leading this interagency partnership, which also includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaii's business and university communities, and conservation groups. Not only have we removed debris that poses harm to endangered species, but with the help of donated services, we have recycled the abandoned nets into energy to power residential homes.

We have learned that our best path to success lies in partnering with one another to share resources, and it is my hope that others may adapt our project to their own shores through the partnership and funding opportunities set forth in this bill. This is why the bill strengthens and reestablishes an Interagency Committee on Marine Debris to coordinate marine debris prevention and removal efforts among federal agencies state governments, universities, and nongovernmental organizations.

We must also bear in mind that no matter how zealously we reform our practices, the ultimate solution lies in international cooperation. The oceans connect the coastal nations of the world, and we must work together to reduce this increasing threat to our seas and shores. The Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act will provide he United States with the tools to develop effective marine debris prevention and removal programs on a worldwide basis, including reporting and information requirements that will assist in the creation of an international marine debris database.

Mr. President, I hope you will join me in supporting enactment of the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. This bill will provide the United States with the programs and resources necessary to protect our most valuable resources, our oceans. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Ballast Water Management Act of 2005. I am joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. For some time we have recognized the impacts of land-based invasive species. In Hawaii, the impacts of such alien species on native species have been among the most significant in the country.

While not as visible, invasive species pose an equally great threat. One of the major ways that aquatic invasives make their way around the globe is through the ballast water used by vessels.

Modern maritime commerce depends on ships stabilized by the uptake and discharge of huge volumes of ocean water for ballast. Regrettably, ships do not transport such water alone--but also the plants and animals, as well as human diseases such as cholera, that it contains. An estimated 10,000 aquatic organisms travel around the globe each day in the ballast water of cargo vessels. Over 2 billion gallons of ballast water are discharged into waters of the United States each year.

From the zebra mussel fouling the facilities and shores of the Great Lakes, to the noxious algae that choke the coral reefs of Hawaii, aquatic invasive species pose a serious threat to delicate marine ecosystems and human health. The economic costs are also staggering-- the direct and indirect costs of

aquatic invasive species to the economy of the United States amount to billions of dollars each year.

We must find an effective solution to this problem, while at the same time ensuring that our maritime industry can continue to operate in a cost-effective manner. We will need to rely on the steady collaborative efforts of industry, science, government, and coastal communities as we move forward.

The bill I introduce today lays the foundation for such progress. It establishes standards for ballast water treatment that will be effective but on a schedule that our maritime fleet can realistically achieve. It recognizes safety as a paramount concern, and allows flexibility in ballast exchange practices to safeguard vessels and their passengers and crew. Looking to the future, my bill will also encourage the development and adoption of new ballast water treatment technologies, as well as innovative technologies to address other vessel sources of invasives such as hull fouling, through a grant program.

The bill closely tracks and is consistent with an agreement recently negotiated in the International Maritime Organization. It would phase- in ballast water treatment requirements on the same schedule as that adopted by the IMO agreement, and require ballast water exchange to be used until treatment systems are in place. Importantly, the international agreement includes a provision assuring that parties can adopt more stringent measures than those included in the agreement. This provision was sought by the United States and is important to assure the sovereignty of nations in addressing their needs while striving for international cooperation. In light of this provision, the bill includes a standard for treatment that is more effective than that adopted by the international community to ensure that the impacts in the United States are adequately prevented.

Finally, the bill would require a report on other vessel pathways of invasive species, including hull fouling, and the development of standards to reduce the introduction of invasive species through such pathways. This issue is particularly important for Hawaii.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act, and I am pleased to be joined by my Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Stevens, and fellow Committee members Senators Lott, Cantwell, Snowe, Kerry, and Lautenberg, who are all original cosponsors of the bill. I am pleased to report that the Senate passed this bill unanimously in the 108th Congress, and we look forward to moving this legislation quickly this year, particularly because of its importance to coastal planning for natural hazards such as tsunami.

The jurisdiction of the United States extends 200 miles beyond its coastline and includes the U.S. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone, or ``EEZ.'' Regrettably, nearly 90 percent of this expanse remains unmapped by modern technologies, meaning that we have almost no information about a swath of ocean as large as the terra firma of the entire United States.

There was a time in the history of our Nation when our best efforts to map the seas meant lowering weights tied to piano wire over the side of a vessel, and measuring how deep they went. These efforts led to the development of rudimentary nautical charts designed to help mariners navigate safely. The rapidly increasing uses of our coastal and ocean waters, however, call for development of a new generation of ecosystem- oriented mapping and assessment products and services.

The technologies of today create richly layered mapping products that expand far beyond just charting for safe navigation. Now, by combining such information as mineral surveys of the U.S. Geological Service, habitat characterizations of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration NOAA, and watershed assessments of the Environmental Protection Agency into a single product, map users are able to consider the impacts of their actions on multiple facets of the marine environment.

Last year, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued a report highlighting the urgent need to modernize, improve, expand, and integrate federal mapping efforts to improve navigation, safety and resource management decisionmaking. By employing integrated mapping approaches, urban and residential growth can be directed away from areas of high risk from ocean-based threats such as tsunami and tidal surge. The risks of maritime activities can be minimized by identifying hazards that could impact on sensitive ecosystems, and devising appropriate mitigation plans. Living marine resource managers can also gauge where and how best to focus their efforts to restore essential marine habitats.

The bill we are introducing today will lay the foundation for producing the ocean maps of the 21st century. It mandates coordination among the many federal agencies with mapping missions with NOAA as the lead in developing national mapping priorities and strategies. The bill would also establish national hydrographic centers to manage comprehensively the mapping data produced by the federal government, encourage innovation in technologies, and authorize the funding necessary to implement this comprehensive effort.

Perhaps the most important lesson that comprehensive, integrated mapping can afford is an awareness of a web of human marine communities as rich and varied as the ocean itself. From awareness grows understanding, respect, and cooperation.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure that will, in turn, support the development of healthy coastal communities across the nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.