Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act of 2010

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to my home State of Louisiana: disaster recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005 and Hurricanes Gustav and Ike of 2008. Almost 5 years after these first two devastating storms, our eyes are still fixed on our shores during hurricane season as our communities and businesses in the hardest-hit areas continue to rebuild. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on their ongoing recovery efforts and am here today to introduce a bill that I believe will help these struggling small businesses become successful once again and hire new workers.

Charles R. ``Ray'' Bergeron and his wife's Fleur de Lis Car Care Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, is one of the businesses that need this type of assistance. Small Business Administrator Karen Mills and I toured the Bergerons' business back in June. Pre-Katrina, Fleur de Lis, which opened in 1988, had nine employees. After Hurricane Katrina hit, Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron found themselves having to take out two loans, one for their house and another for their small business. As of our visit in June, the Bergerons were down to two employees, not including themselves, and their business was back at about 40 percent of pre- Katrina sales, due in large measure to the population not returning. Their neighborhood is mostly empty homes, which Mr. Bergeron attributes in part to high flood insurance premiums, high property taxes and high homeowner's insurance.

As of June when I met with them, the Bergerons had a $225,000 SBA disaster loan with a standard 30-year term, which Mr. Bergeron says he will not pay off until he is 101 years old. But just yesterday, Mrs. Bergeron contacted my office requesting SBA assistance with their loan repayment after work to repair the flood-damaged roads surrounding their gas station had cut access to their business for even their most loyal customers. Since the project began, Fleur de Lis' sales have been cut almost in half. This latest challenge comes on the heels of the economic downturn, which caused the station to lay off two employees earlier last year.

The Bergeron's story is one I have heard from countless businesses. Coupled with their recovery from the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes, and more recently, the economic downturn, these businesses--the ones that took the initiative to quickly reopen after the storms--are today struggling with one challenge after another. Yet these ``pioneer'' businesses are the ones rebuilding communities need the most because they serve as anchors. If residents see the Bergeron's gas station, or their favorite restaurant, open, they are more likely to come back to rebuild their homes.

To help ongoing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, and to give these struggling businesses immediate assistance, I am introducing today the Southeast Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Act of 2010. I thank my colleague Representative Charlie Melancon for introducing the House companion bill. Our legislation would provide targeted assistance to as many as 22,000 businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. What these particular businesses have in common is that they received SBA disaster loans following the 2005 or 2008 hurricanes. While they have made payments on these loans, I have heard from countless businesses in my State that they could expand operations if they had additional cash flow. This legislation would inject immediate capital into these hardest-hit businesses by giving SBA the authority to waive up to $15,000 of interest payments over 3 years, helping to create or save up to 81,000 jobs.

Under this program, SBA is required to give priority to applications from businesses with 50 employees or less and businesses that re-opened between September 2005 and October 2006 for the 2005 storms or September and December 2008 for the 2008 hurricanes. This ensures that SBA first helps true small businesses and those ``pioneer'' businesses that were the first to re-open after the disaster. The program would end on December 31, 2010.

This program makes a difference because for some businesses, depending on the loan term and loan amount, their total principal/ interest payments could run as high as $1,000 per month. For example, for a $114,000 disaster loan with a 4 percent interest rate and a 25- year term, a business could be paying as much as $400 in monthly interest. In one year, this adds up to $4,800 and almost $14,500 in 3 years. While this is not a lot of money for Wall Street banks or Fortune 500 companies, $15,000 makes a major impact for a gas station with two employees, like Fleur de Lis, or a neighborhood restaurant with 10 employees. These businesses have seen their bottom lines shrink as others on Wall Street received extravagant bonuses. I, for one, believe it is time to help these Main Street businesses, as they are the backbone of our communities.

My legislation also follows legislation approved by a previous Congress. The prior bill came after Hurricane Betsy devastated Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi in September 1965. According to Red Cross reports at the time, between 800,000 and 1 million people were adversely impacted by the hurricane. Before this storm, the only previous disaster of that magnitude was the 1937 Ohio-Mississippi River floods, which forced more than a million people from their homes. In total, Betsy destroyed more than 1,500 homes, damaged more than 150,000, and damaged more than 2,000 trailers. Hurricane Betsy also destroyed 1,400 farm buildings and 2,600 small businesses. At the time, the Senate Committee on Public Works noted in Committee Report 89-917 that, ``The overwhelming magnitude of the vicious storm, surprising even to experienced disaster workers, was more apparent every day as storm victims continued to register for long-term recovery help in rebuilding their lives and homes.''

As part of the review to provide Hurricane Betsy victims appropriate assistance, including a field hearing in Louisiana, Congress determined that the massive scale of this disaster required targeted, disaster- specific programs. In particular, Congress approved the Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965, Public Law 89-339. This bill authorized various business, homeowner, and agricultural disaster assistance, including loans and temporary rental assistance. In its committee report on the legislation, which is referenced above, the Senate Committee on Public Works wrote, ``This bill contains what the committee believes is needed and necessary to give further aid to the disaster-stricken areas . . . including special measures to help these States in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of devastated areas.'' Among other provisions, Section 3 of the bill authorized SBA to waive interest--for loans above $500--due on the loan over a period of 3 years, but not to exceed $1,800 in interest. The bill was signed into law in November 1965 and Congress later approved $35 million to implement provisions in the Act.

Just as with Hurricane Betsy in 1965, in 2005, Mississippi and Louisiana again saw a catastrophic disaster hit their businesses, farms, and homes. Everyone now knows the impact Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on the New Orleans area and the southeast part of our State. Images from the devastation following these storms, and the subsequent Federal levee breaks, were transmitted across the country and around the world. Katrina ended up being the deadliest natural disaster in United States history, with 1,800 people killed--1,500 in Louisiana alone. Katrina was also the costliest natural

disaster in U.S. history, with more than $81.2 billion reported in damage.

In Louisiana, we had 18,000 businesses catastrophically destroyed and 81,000 businesses economically impacted. I believe that, across the entire Gulf Coast, some estimates ran as high as 125,000 businesses impacted by Katrina and Rita. Many of these businesses, for various reasons, have not returned or re-opened. By mid-2007, Orleans Parish was still down 2,000 employers, or 23 percent of its pre-Katrina business level. Nearby St. Bernard Parish--which had up to 80 percent of its homes damaged--had the largest percentage decline of 48 percent fewer businesses open, according to Louisiana State University and the Louisiana Recovery Authority. These disasters were followed by the 2008 hurricanes that hit the same areas in Texas and Louisiana. With this in mind, on September 25, 2009, I chaired a committee field hearing in Galveston, Texas. At this hearing, we received a progress report from Federal, State and local officials on the recovery from Hurricane Ike in 2008. We also heard from individual business owners in Galveston who were still struggling a year on from the hurricane.

These Galveston business owners, the Bergeron's Fleur de Lis gas station, and many other ``pioneer'' businesses did choose to re-open and are now struggling to stay alive. As is clear from the Bergerons' story, these businesses have suffered from not one disaster, but three: Hurricane Katrina/Rita in 2005, Hurricane Gustav/Ike in 2008, and the economic downturn. My home State of Louisiana was slow to feel the brunt of the credit crunch and economic meltdown, but last year we began to see the drying up of investments and the shrinking of consumers' pocketbooks. I believe the special program implemented following Hurricane Betsy in 1965 would today greatly benefit businesses in these three states hardest hit by Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike. Given the urgent needs of many of these impacted businesses, I will be reaching out to my colleagues in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to hopefully gain their support for quick passage of this assistance. While I recognize that these are the hardest hit states, I am also interested to hear from my other Gulf Coast colleagues on whether this program would benefit their impacted businesses as well.

In closing, I would like to note that Congress has been generous in providing essential recovery funds following the 2005 and 2008 storms. However, as we approach the fifth anniversary of the 2005 disasters, we must now ensure that impacted businesses can make it past this anniversary--preventing thousands more workers from being unemployed or additional defaults on SBA disaster loans. One important way that this Congress can ensure that these workers remain employed and that these businesses survive, and even grow, would be to relieve some of the interest on these SBA disaster loans. For this reason, I urge my Senate colleagues to support this commonsense legislation which would make a difference for up to 22,000 Main Street business owners and their estimated 81,000 employees in the Gulf Coast.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the Small Business Contracting Improvements Act of 2010, legislation designed to protect the interests of small businesses and boost their opportunities in the Federal marketplace.

As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have focused a considerable amount of energy promoting the interests of small businesses in the federal contracting arena. The legislation I am introducing today marks a critical step forward in this process.

As the largest purchaser in the world, the Federal Government is uniquely positioned to offer new and reliable business opportunities for our Main Street businesses. Government contracts are perhaps one of the easiest and most inexpensive ways the government can help immediately increase sales for America's entrepreneurs, giving them the tools they need to keep our economy strong and create jobs. By increasing contracts to small businesses by just 1 percent, we can create more than 100,000 new jobs--and today, we need those jobs more than ever.

But the reality is, small businesses need all the help they can get accessing Federal contracts. In fiscal year 2007, according to the Federal Procurement Data System, the Federal Government missed its 23 percent contracting goal by .992 percent. That .992 percent represents more than $3.74 billion and 93,500 jobs lost for small businesses. The numbers are even worse the next fiscal, in fiscal year 2008 the Federal Procurement Data System reported that the government missed its goal by 1.51 percent--meaning more than $6.51 billion and 162,700 jobs lost. While these numbers tell the stark story of why this legislation is vital for our small businesses and our overall economy, they are still only a part of the story of why this legislation is needed.

Our small businesses have been taking the brunt of this economic downturn. In this past year, small businesses accounted for more than 85 percent of job losses. This fact was vividly illustrated to me this weekend when I met with Louisiana business owners and officials. A small business owner who spoke at our meeting told of how he was down from 20 plus employees to three. He was clear that if he had access to federal work he would begin staffing up tomorrow. That is the reason I am introducing this legislation today. These contracting opportunities represent job creation for small businesses in a way that is unique. When large businesses get new work they

typically spread that work among existing employees. When small businesses get these contracts they must staff up to meet the increased demand.

Furthermore, last night President Obama made the case that small businesses need to be the focus of our recovery. I have heard over and over again that small business is the engine that drives our economy. Well, if that is true, then it is time to give that engine some gas. President Obama set the right tone last night and today our bill looks to act on his words and fill that tank as we consider improvements in four key areas.

The first area I attempt to make improvements in is the area of contract bundling. Although contract bundling may have started out as a good idea, it has now become the prime example of the old saying that too much of a good thing can be very, very bad. The proliferation of bundled contracts coupled with the decimation of contracting professionals within the government threatens to kill small businesses' ability to compete for federal contracts.

Our bill looks to address those issues by ensuring: accountability of senior agency management for all incidents of bundling; timely and accurate reporting of contract bundling information by all federal agencies; and improved oversight of bundling regulation compliance by the Small Business Administration, SBA.

The bill also ensures that contract consolidation decisions made by a department or agency, other than the Defense Department and its agencies, provide small businesses with appropriate opportunities to participate as prime contractors and subcontractors.

Another way that this bill attempts to tackle the issue of bundling is by creating a joint venture and teaming center at the SBA. This center will provide technical support to associations and businesses who are interested in bidding on larger contracts as part of small business teams or joint ventures. The bill will also ease regulations that serve as a disincentive for small businesses who want to enter into teaming relationships with one another.

The second area that this bill attempts to address is subcontracting. The Committee has heard from many businesses about the challenges that some small business subcontractors face when dealing with prime contractors. Business owners have related that the way subcontracting compliance is calculated creates opportunity for abuse. They also related that many small businesses will spend time, money and effort preparing bid proposals to be a part of a bid team and that once the contract is won they never heard from the prime contractor again. Many also complain about a lack of timely payments after they have completed work.

This bill attempts to deal with some of these issues by including provisions designed to prevent misrepresentations in subcontracting by prime contractors. To accomplish this, the bill: provides guidelines and procedures for reviewing and evaluating subcontractor participation in prime contracts and provides for speedier payments to small business subcontractors who have successfully completed work on behalf of the prime contractor.

The third area I intend to update is the acquisition process. This bill aims to increase the number of small business contracting opportunities by including additional provisions to reduce bundled contracts by reserving more contracts for small business concerns. The bill accomplishes this by: authorizing small business set-asides in multiple-award, multi-agency contracting vehicles; directing the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to issue guidelines to analyze the use of government credit cards for the purpose of meeting small business goals; and requiring that agencies include meeting small business contracting goals in the performance evaluation of contracting and program personnel.

The last area that I tackle in this legislation is small business size and status integrity. The Committee has heard from a number of small businesses about large businesses parading as small businesses. It is imperative that small business contracts go to small businesses. Small businesses may be losing billions of dollars in opportunities because of size standard loopholes.

This bill attempts to address these issues by making additions to the Small Business Act that are designed to strengthen the government's ability to enforce the size and status standards for small business certification. To achieve this, the new section: establishes a presumption of loss to the federal government whenever a large business performs a small business contract; requires that small businesses annually certify their size status; requires the development of training programs for small business size standards; requires a detailed review of the size standards for small businesses by the SBA within one year; and directs GAO to study the effectiveness of the mentor-protege program.

It is well past time to provide greater opportunities for the thousands of small business owners who wish to do business with the Federal Government. I believe that this legislation is a good step toward opening those doors of opportunity. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and I look forward to working with them as we work to move this legislation forward.

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

I am pleased to speak as chair of the Small Business Committee with several of my colleagues from the committee who have been hard at work coming up with ideas, drafting and passing legislation in the Small Business Committee over the last 3 months, particularly to get ready for this time. It is time that this Senate and Congress moved a third jobs bill with a focus on small business in America.

I acknowledge the members of the Small Business Committee. Two of them will join me this morning, and we will all, hopefully, be on the floor in the next couple of days talking about the importance of focusing on small business job creation. My ranking member, of course, is the great Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe; John Kerry, former chair of the committee; Chris Bond, former chair; Carl Levin; David Vitter; Tom Harkin; John Thune; Joe Lieberman; Mike Enzi; Maria Cantwell; Johnny Isakson; Evan Bayh; Roger Wicker; Mark Pryor; James Risch; Ben Cardin; Jeanne Shaheen; and Kay Hagan. Let me say that these members have been extraordinary. We have passed not one, not two, not three, not four, but five fairly significant pieces of legislation in a completely bipartisan fashion. The bills I will highlight this morning have been passed by our committee by large and convincing margins: 18 to 0, 15 to 3, 16 to 4. We are proud of the work we have done.

My call to the Senators this morning is to get our eyes off of Wall Street and onto Main Street. If we really want to dig out of this recession, created by a number of things--failed policies from the past administration, a confluence of the crash of the stock market and the financial sector, poor regulation from us over time--the people who have really suffered are the small business owners who, unlike large businesses and public companies, have put everything at risk--their future, their house, their children's future--everything at risk to create business because that is what Americans do, and we do it better than any country on Earth.

We recognize the strength of American business. It is about entrepreneurship. That is what the Small Business Committee is focused on. We want attention--and we will get it--to this issue.

I thank the members for their hard work and support. In this toxic environment, to get anything out of a committee with that kind of vote, we deserve a round of applause before we even start. But that is another story for another day.

Now we have to move the bills through the process. I want to share this graph, which is telling. Of the share of net new jobs created, 65 percent of the new jobs created by everything we do here will be created by small business, not by big business. Large firms are shrinking, reorganizing, sort of waiting for the market to come back. I understand that. They have a fiduciary responsibility. These folks are out there taking the big risk. When the way is not clear, when it is still cloudy, it is small businesses taking a chance that maybe things will turn around. These are the people we have to get our eyes on.

As chair of the Small Business Committee, I have heard for months that small businesses want to hire new workers. They need to hire new workers. They can expand their business, but they don't have the ability.

Small business owner Ray Meche, who owns several neighborhood pharmacies in southwest Louisiana, has an excellent track record. He has been in business for over 20 years. He has never missed a payment. He can't get a loan because he uses the small business lending program and he is capped at $2 million. One of our bills would raise that cap to $5 million. That is something we must do now. Until we do, business owners such as Ray wait. They wait to get larger loans to expand their businesses. They wait for a government contract. They wait for opportunities for counseling as they attempt to boost sales by tapping into potential markets overseas.

I want to show an export chart which is also telling. When I saw this, I had my staff use it at every townhall I do because I actually didn't believe it. I made them go back and do it several times because it was so contrary to my notion of the world. But it is true. This is the truth. Of all small businesses in America, of every one we know, less than 1 percent export their goods out of the country. Think about that. When the market in America is soft and our businesses are trying to create jobs, we can do what we can to energize these markets at home, but we most certainly should be looking overseas. I can tell you why small businesses would be a little nervous about it. Because they have never negotiated with big trade representatives China and Korea and Germany and France. It could be a little intimidating. They have great products. With the Internet, they have the world at their fingertips. What they don't have is an export bill by their own Congress that gives them an opportunity to get the training and technical assistance through departments we already pay for, departments that are already set up but just aren't focused on small business and helping them trade.

I want to see this pie chart expanded. I don't know if we can expand it to 10 percent of small businesses or 20 percent, but we can't sit at 1 percent while our people lose jobs here. That is why this package is important.

I thank Senator Shaheen for her extraordinary leadership and also my ranking member, Senator Snowe, who has spent a great deal of time talking in the committee and in hearings about the opportunity for trade. That is what this package does as well.

I want to present the Access to Capital Coalition that is behind us. We did not come here to the floor alone. We have an extraordinary coalition for a jobs agenda from small business groups all over America, from the small business groups represented by the Chamber of Commerce, to the Federation of Small Business, to the San Francisco Small Business Network, to the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, the Marin Builders Association, the Main Street Alliance, just to read a few, Oregon Small Business for Responsible Leadership.

This list represents hundreds of thousands of businesses that say to me every day: Senator, does anybody know we are here? Every day we pick up the paper and we read about AIG, Goldman Sachs, General Motors, Exxon. We think those companies are great. We hope maybe to be as big as they are one day. But does anybody know we are here?

I know you are there. We are going to fight hard for you, and we are going to pull this coalition together to focus on the one group of people in America who can actually create jobs, which would be the small businesses, found in every neighborhood, on every Main Street, in urban areas, suburban areas. And, yes,

even rural areas can create the kind of jobs we need to lift this Nation out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

I say to the Presiding Officer, you were a banker. You understand the importance of lending money to small businesses and getting it to them when they need it quickly. You established extraordinary opportunities in your home State of Illinois. That is what this package of bills does that has passed out of the Small Business Committee and is pending for action in this Senate.

Small businesses have borne the greatest burden in this economy. They are the business that have the greatest potential to improve it. By making these simple, inexpensive, and commonsense proposals to help small businesses, we can turn pink slips into paychecks for American workers, and we can lift our entire Nation out of this terrible recession into a brighter day in the future.

So, again, I thank my colleagues on the committee for working in such a bipartisan manner.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an outline of the five bills that make up this package, S. 2869, the Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act; S. 2862, the Small Business Export Enhancement and International Trade Act; S. 2989, the Small Business Contracting Improvement Act; S. 1229, the Entrepreneurial Development Act; and S. 1233 the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act.

We will take them up, hopefully, in a package at a later date, but I want to call my colleagues' attention to the package of bills that will expand loan limits, expand contracting opportunities with the Federal Government, which, by the way, spends billions of dollars right now with business. If we just spend a little bit more with small business, these small businesses--instead of absorbing the contracts, which the big businesses do--will have to hire up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

Small businesses, when they get a contract from the Federal Government, will staff up because that is what small businesses do. They are very flexible. They are very agile. They will scale down, and they can scale up quickly.

So I am proud of this package. I want to recognize two of my members who are on the Senate floor: former Governor and now a Senator from New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen, who has been a great leader on this issue--I thank you, Senator--and also Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland. He has been a particularly strong leader on the contracting for small businesses. So I would like to ask the Senator to join me in her remarks this morning.

Mr. President, again, I thank my colleagues both, and particularly Senator Cardin, for that impassioned plea to focus this place on small business. If we are serious about

creating jobs, then our focus, our effort, our work should be for the millions of small businesses out there that with just a little bit of tweaking, a little bit of help from an export initiative here, some regulation reform here, loan pools here, changing current law, could help them do what they want to do, which is expand and grow jobs.

I see my colleagues are here to speak, so I am just going to take 1 minute to conclude.

I wish my colleagues to know that while this package is five major bills, there is an initiative that is not in bill form yet, but we are very serious about bringing it forward. It is going to include a provision for there to be a pool of capital available. It may be the way Senator Cardin has envisioned it, which is direct loans from the SBA. It may be the way Senator Levin and Senator Warner have been talking about, which is an idea to provide guaranteed loan pools to leverage private capital in the country. It may be something Bill Clinton spoke with us about yesterday, which is creating a dynamic new opportunity to retrofit public buildings in America and put people to work and use the savings in energy efficiency to pay back the loans so there is no new taxpayer money spent. It is leveraging the private sector to do two great things: provide jobs immediately and make more efficient every public building in America.

There is more we can do. So as the chairman, let me be very clear. I am very proud of this package. It is five bills. It has passed our committee almost unanimously. As we move this package to the floor, I hope we will get the same cooperation from Republican Members on this floor as we did from the Republican Members who serve on our committee. We have been very open, very sincere in our efforts to pull this package together, and we will continue to work in that good spirit. I hope we are met with that same feeling.

Two more things, briefly. I am probably not going to push to put in this bill a reform piece on credit cards to small businesses because it is not the jurisdiction of our committee; it is primarily the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. However, I want this Senate to know I am on record today. Senator Cardin says--and he is correct--how in the world are small businesses in America going to stay in business if they have to pay 15 and 20 percent interest rates? Could anybody tell me this? Is there any small business in America that thinks they can make money, hire people, and pay 20 percent interest rates? It is a shame. It is wrong. We are going to do something about small business credit card rates. I will tell my colleagues why. Because in the old days, not too long ago when the housing market was strong, which it is not today, Americans--who believe in the American dream because we tell them about it when they are 4 years old and they actually believe it when they grow up--their house had $200,000 or $300,000 or $400,000 or $50,000 in equity. So when they wanted to start a business, they went to their banker and their banker said: How much equity do you have in your house? They said: $50,000. They wrote them a check that day for $20,000. They took that amount of money and they bought a stove and they started a business, maybe cooking a little scrambled eggs and ham.

Those days are over with. There is no equity in their homes anymore. When they go to their bank, they don't see a sign that says welcome-- and I am not talking about community banks, I am talking about big banks that got all the money from us--they see a sign that says come back next year when things are better. So they have to then dig in their pocket and pull out their credit card. We have done them a great favor. We allow the companies to charge them not 3 percent, not 6 percent, not 10 percent but 20 percent.

I can't put that bill in this package, but I promise my colleagues it is coming. We cannot ask small business to pay 20 percent on their loans. Yes, we have to give them tax relief. But do my colleagues know what they need right now? They need borrowing relief.

So I am going to conclude with that. It is going to be a good package, and we are going to be very smart about how we put it forward. I know we have to take the tough things maybe separately so as to not detain this. But I am on record, and we are going to fight for it until we get it done.

I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to increase tax fairness for America's primary and secondary school teachers.

Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our society. These women and men dedicate their careers to educating the young people of America. School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous circumstances. In most places, including in my home state of Utah, the salary of the average public school teacher is significantly below the national average.

For a variety of economic and organizational reasons, schools across the nation are experiencing difficulties in recruiting teachers-- especially in the fields of math and science. There are at least two sources to this problem. First, schools are experiencing high levels of turnover related to retirement, relocation, and attrition. Second, there is an insufficient supply of new qualified math and science teachers coming in to the schools to compensate for the turnover.

As a result of these factors, 31 percent of secondary schools across the nation report difficulties in filling math and science faculty positions. This teacher recruitment problem is especially troubling because it disproportionately affects small schools in urban and rural areas, especially those with limited access to funding.

Unfortunately, the problems of retention and recruitment of public school teachers are exacerbated by the unfair tax treatment these professionals currently receive under our tax law. Specifically, teachers are greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of the total amount of out-of-pocket costs of classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying, as well as by the inability to deduct their professional development expenses. Let me explain.

As with many other professionals, most elementary and secondary school teachers regularly incur expenses to keep themselves current in their fields of knowledge. These include subscriptions to journals and other periodicals as well as the cost of courses and seminars designed to improve their knowledge or teaching skills. For example, in order to be certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, NBPTS, a teacher must pay a fee of $2,500. Expenditures like these are necessary to keep our teachers up to date on the latest ideas, techniques, and trends so that they can provide our children with the best education possible.

Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves spending not insignificant amounts of money to provide basic classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material teachers need to adequately present their lessons. New teachers in their first and second years are especially susceptible to a large financial burden as they must start from scratch in establishing a curriculum and classroom for their students.

I realize that employees in many fields incur expenses for professional development and out-of-pocket expenses. In many cases, however, these costs are reimbursed by the employer. This is seldom the case with school teachers. Other professionals who are self-employed are generally able to fully deduct these types of expenses.

Under the current tax law, unreimbursed expenses for all employees are deductible generally, but only as miscellaneous itemized deductions. However, there are two practical hurdles that effectively make these expenses non-deductible for most teachers. The first hurdle is that the total amount of a taxpayer's deductible miscellaneous deductions must exceed 2 percent of gross income before they begin to be deductible.

The second hurdle is that the amount in excess of the 2 percent floor, if any, combined with all other deductions of the taxpayer, must exceed the standard deduction before the teacher can itemize. Only about one-third of taxpayers have enough deductions to itemize. The unfortunate effect of these two limitations is that, as a practical matter, only a small proportion of teachers are able to deduct their professional development and out-of-pocket supplies expenses.

Let me illustrate this unfair situation with an example. Let us consider the case of a first-year teacher in Utah, whom we will refer to as Michelle. Michelle is newly married. She and her husband together expect to earn $48,000 this year. As a brand-new teacher, Michelle has none of the classroom decorations, materials, or curriculum aides that veteran teachers have accumulated. In an effort to quickly collect some necessary items for her classroom, a new teacher like Michelle will probably spend close to $1,500 of her own money. She will not be reimbursed for any of these expenses by the school district.

Under current law, Michelle's expenditures are deductible, subject to the two limitations I mentioned. The first limitation is that her expenses must exceed 2 percent of her and her husband's joint income before they begin to be deductible. Two percent of $48,000 is $960. Thus, only $540 of her $1,500 total expense is potentially deductible-- that portion that exceeds $960.

As a married taxpayer, Michelle's standard deduction this year is $11,400. Her total itemized deductions, including the $540 in qualified miscellaneous deductions for her professional expenses and out-of- pocket classroom supplies, will fall far short of the standard deduction threshold. Therefore, not even the $540 of the original $1,500 in out-of-pocket costs is deductible for Michelle. What the first limitation did not block, the second one did, and Michelle gets no deduction at all for these expenses under the current law.

The entry-level employees in the teaching field are the first- and second-year teachers like Michelle, who receive the lowest relative salary and yet often incur the greatest school-related expenses. These expenses place a heavy burden on our teachers and can act as a significant barrier to entry to the teaching profession. Many of these new teachers are renting and fresh out of college, and are thus very unlikely to be able to itemize their deductions. Therefore, without the ability to itemize, the teachers with the greatest need of tax relief are the ones least likely to receive it.

This problem is not isolated to first-year teachers. Veteran educators, like Kristen Adamson, also an elementary school teacher in Utah, have also expressed their concerns about this tax inequity. Kristen is preparing for a class of 35 fifth-graders next year--the most she's ever had. She, like most teachers, feels that it is her duty to provide all of her students with the materials they will need to successfully complete their school work. There are few careers that I know of in which employees take similar initiative.

This year, due to limited state funding, Kristen will be forced to choose between a class set of colored pencils or a class set of crayons. Whatever the district does not provide, Kristen will be forced to purchase herself. Further, the school district provides only one

notebook per student, but her pupils require a minimum of four each to organize their work. With 35 students, these costs can add up very quickly. Kristen typically does not have enough deductions to itemize and therefore, like most teachers, will receive little or no tax relief.

As you can see, public school educators are at a marked disadvantage under the current tax law, and they deserve better treatment. Not only is the situation morally unacceptable, it is aggravating to our teacher retention and recruitment problems.

I have been fighting to pass legislation that will help alleviate this long-standing problem for almost a decade. In 2001, I first introduced the Tax Equity for School Teachers Act. This legislation would have provided an unlimited tax deduction for the out-of-pocket expenses school teachers incur to acquire necessary training and materials.

Rather than being available only to those who are able to itemize their deductions, this bill would have made these expenses ``above-the- line'' deductions, meaning they would be deductible whether or not the teacher itemized on their tax return.

Unfortunately, only a part of this bill was enacted. The 2001 tax act included an above the-line deduction for $250 for the costs of classroom expenses. While this was a step in the right direction, it was essentially a symbolic gesture as teachers typically spend far more than $250 on school-related expenses. This deduction has expired and has been renewed several times, but it expired again at the end of last year. It is not clear when Congress is going to extend it.

The bill I am introducing today would do three things. First, it would reinstate the above-the-line deduction for teachers' out-of- pocket expenses for classroom supplies, make it permanent, and remove the $250 cap. Second, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the professional development expenses for school teachers. Finally, to assist in the recruitment of teachers in the most-needed fields, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the cost of professionals in the fields of math, science, and technology to certify to become public school teachers.

Under my bill, first-year teacher Michelle would be allowed to deduct all $1,500 of her professional development and classroom supplies expenses, whether she itemized or not. Similarly, Kristen would be able to deduct all of the expenses she incurred to provide materials for her students. This would help provide tax equity and a measure of much- needed tax relief for scores of underpaid professionals. It would also help retain current public school teachers and attract new ones to the field.

Some might argue that such a generous deduction would be giving teachers preferential treatment. I disagree. Most organizations provide training and supplies for their employees that are fully deductible to the organization and non-taxable to the employee. Yet, public teachers pay for training out of their own pocket, as is the case with NBPTS certification.

Others may question the wisdom of my bill granting an unlimited tax deduction. Why not place a limit or cap on the amount that may be deducted, some might ask. Again, I respectfully disagree with such critics. It is important to keep in mind the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit. My bill calls for tax deductions, which essentially act as a cost-sharing arrangement between the teacher and the government. Deductions reduce the amount of income that is subject to tax. A credit, on the other hand, is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of tax that is due.

With a tax deduction, a public school teacher is not receiving a cash subsidy or reimbursement for his or her expenses. Rather, he or she is merely obtaining a reduction in the amount of income that is taxed. Thus, the most benefit a teacher would receive under my bill would be a 35 percent reduction in the cost of professional development, supplies, or certification expenses. For the vast majority of teachers, the amount would be far less than 35 percent, because they are in lower tax brackets. This means that the teacher is still responsible for paying for the biggest portion of these costs. In other words, this bill does not provide an incentive for teachers to spend unnecessary funds; it simply provides a discount for teachers who use their common sense and spend their money appropriately. If anything, this deduction is not generous enough, but it would go a long way toward providing help for these dedicated professionals.

Support for mathematics and science education at all levels is necessary to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology. I endorse the efforts of some of my colleagues to encourage more of our best and brightest students who choose these fields of study. Sup ort for qualified STEM teachers, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is equally important. If we are successful in increasing the supply of STEM students, we will need to take drastic measures to increase the already strained supply of STEM teachers. This bill would provide incentives for these professionals to enter the teaching profession by allowing expenses in connection with teacher licensing and certification to be fully deductible, above the line, the same as professional development and supplies expenses of teaching professionals.

This bill would provide modest tax relief for teachers who, for too long, have been treated unfairly under our tax laws. It would alleviate significant barriers to entry to the teaching profession and would help solve some of our teacher recruitment and retention problems. Our teachers deserve whatever help we can provide. It is time that Congress recognized this unfairness and corrected it. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, the law granting the Federal Government, for the first time, the authority to regulate the security of the nation's highest risk chemical facilities is due to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Given the success of this law and its vital importance to all Americans, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Pryor, Voinovich, and Landrieu to reauthorize it.

The U.S. is home to an astonishing number of facilities that manufacture, use, or store chemicals for legitimate purposes. From pharmaceuticals to cosmetics, soaps to plastics and all manner of industrial, construction, and agricultural products, chemicals enable the manufacture of more than 70,000 products that improve the well- being of the American people.

The chemical industry is enormous, diverse, and vital to the American economy. It approaches half a trillion dollars annually in sales. It is one of our largest exporters, with exports totaling $174 billion annually. It directly employs more than 850,000 people nationwide and supports millions more indirectly.

These facilities are vital parts of our economy and society. But, to our enemies, they can be potential chemical weapons. Like the airliners of September 11th, it would only take an attack on a few, or even one, to cause a horrifying loss of life.

In 2005, as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I held a series of hearings to examine the terrorist threat to the nation's chemical facilities and the devastating consequences that could arise from a successful attack. As a result of those hearings, I introduced comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the authority necessary to set and enforce security standards at high-risk chemical facilities in the U.S. That bill formed the basis for chemical security legislation signed into law in 2006 as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

Specifically, section 550 requires the Department to issue rules requiring all high-risk chemical facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments, develop site security plans to address identified vulnerabilities, and implement protective measures necessary to satisfy risk-based performance standards. Section 550 also directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to review and approve those vulnerability assessments and site security plans and to audit and inspect covered chemical facilities for compliance with the performance standards. It also permits the Secretary to shut down covered facilities that are non-compliant.

In April 2007, the Department published interim final rules, known as the Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards, CFATS, setting forth the requirements that high-risk chemical facilities must meet to comply with the law. Among other things, CFATS establishes 18 risk-based performance standards which facilities must meet to be in compliance with the law. These standards cover items such as securing the perimeter and critical targets, controlling access, deterring the theft of potentially dangerous chemicals, and preventing internal sabotage.

CFATS, however, does not dictate specific security measures. Instead, the law allows chemical facilities the flexibility to choose the security measures or programs that the owner or operator of the facility decides would best address the particular facility and its security risks, so long as these security measures satisfy the Department's 18 performance standards.

Since publishing CFATS in 2007, the Department has worked aggressively and diligently on implementation. The Department has hired and trained more than 100 chemical facility field inspectors and headquarters staff. Indeed, by the end of Fiscal Year 2010, the Department hopes to employ more than 260 CFATS staff. And, to date, the Department has received over $200 million in funding to support CFATS.

Given the daunting challenges of establishing such a comprehensive regulatory program from scratch, the Department wisely decided to implement CFATS in phases, beginning with those facilities presenting the very highest security risks.

To determine which facilities presented the highest risks, the Department first required chemical plants that possessed certain threshold quantities of specified chemicals to complete an online security assessment--called ``Top-Screen.'' Based on the Top-Screen and any other available information, the Department then ascertained whether a facility ``presented a high level of security risk'' and preliminarily divided such facilities into four tiers of escalating risk. While all covered facilities must satisfy the Department's performance standards, the security measures sufficient to meet them are more robust for those facilities in the higher tiers, such as Tiers 1 and 2.

For chemical facilities that qualified as ``preliminarily high risk,'' the Department required the preparation and submission of security vulnerability assessments. These assessments enabled the Department to identify more accurately each facility's risk and, thus, to assign final risk tier rankings. Based on these final tier rankings, these facilities must develop site security plans and submit to inspections or audits to ensure their compliance.

The men and women of the Department have processed a tremendous amount of information in a relatively short period of time. According to the Department, since establishing CFATS, it has reviewed almost 38,000 Top-Screen submissions and notified more than 7,000 facilities of their high-risk designations and preliminary tiers.

As of December 2009, CFATS covered only 6,000 facilities. Some facilities closed; others made material modifications that altered their risk profile. Of those remaining, the Department has assigned final tiers to almost 3,000--including all of the facilities in Tiers 1 and 2--and is now reviewing their site security plans.

Although the Department remains in the midst of implementing CFATS, it has generally received positive reviews for its work. The private sector has become a partner in the program's success. The collaborative nature of the program has been praised by many experts as a model for security-related regulation.

Notwithstanding the Department's success in administering the CFATS program and the considerable costs that facilities have incurred in complying with it, some now want to ``swap horses in midstream'' by radically overhauling the law.

Indeed, in November 2009, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would dramatically alter the nature of CFATS, requiring the Department to completely rework the program and stop its considerable progress--dead in its tracks. Among other things, the House bill would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish new risk-based performance standards, require covered chemical facilities in Tiers 1 and 2 to implement so-called ``inherently safer technology'', IST, and allow third-party lawsuits against the Department over CFATS implementation.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, the changes proposed by the House will in no way enhance the nation's security. They will, however, impose unnecessary and costly burdens on the economy and destroy the collaborative public-private partnership critical to CFATS' success.

The House provision that would allow the Department to mandate that certain chemical facilities implement IST is an example. IST is an approach

to process engineering involving the use of less dangerous chemicals, less energetic reaction conditions, or reduced chemical inventories. It is not, however, a security measure. And because there is no precise methodology by which to measure whether one technology or process is safer than another, an IST mandate may actually increase or unacceptably transfer the risk to other points in the chemical process or elsewhere on the supply chain.

For example, it is my understanding that after careful evaluations of the available alternatives, many drinking water utilities have determined that gaseous chlorine remains their best and most effective drinking water treatment option. Their decisions were not based solely on financial cost considerations, but also on many other factors, such as the characteristics of the region's climate, geography, and source water supplies, the size and location of the utility's facilities, and the risks and benefits of gaseous chlorine use compared to those inherent with the use of alternative treatment processes.

According to one water utility located in an isolated area of the Northwest, if Congress were to force it to replace its use of gaseous chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, then the utility would have to use as much as seven times the current quantity of treatment chemicals to achieve comparable water quality results. In turn, the utility would have to arrange for many more bulk chemical deliveries, by trucks, into the watershed. The greater quantities of chemicals and increased frequency of truck deliveries would heighten the risk of an accident resulting in a chemical spill into the watershed. In fact, the accidental release of sodium hypochlorite into the watershed would likely cause greater harm to soils, vegetation and streams than a gaseous chlorine release in this remote area. Because the facility is so isolated from population centers, the gas released in the event of an accident would almost certainly dissipate before reaching populated areas.

Forcing chemical facilities to implement IST could wreak economic havoc on some facilities and affect the availability of products that all Americans take for granted. For instance, according to October 2009 testimony by the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, mandatory IST would negatively restrict the production of pharmaceuticals and microelectronics, unnecessarily crippling those industries.

Moreover, the increased cost of a mandatory IST program could encourage chemical companies to transfer their operations overseas, costing thousands of American jobs.

To be clear, some owners and operators of chemical facilities will want to use IST. But the decision to implement IST should be that of the owner or operator, not a Washington bureaucrat.

In fact, the evidence is quite compelling that many chemical facilities, based on an assessment of many complex factors, have already taken steps to avoid the use, storage, and handling of extremely dangerous chemicals in favor of safer alternative processes. The Department's own data indicate that nearly 1,000 facilities voluntarily adopted safer alternative processes.

Notwithstanding all of the other changes to CFATS passed by the House, the mandatory IST requirement itself will bring CFATS to a screeching halt. This is neither necessary nor wise. Congress should not dictate specific industrial processes under the guise of security when a facility may choose other alternatives that meet the Nation's security needs.

That is precisely why Senators Pryor, Voinovich, Landrieu, and I are introducing the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010. Instead of directing the Department to start again from scratch, our legislation would reauthorize section 550 for five more years. Such an extension would provide the Department with sufficient time to fully implement the CFATS program in its current form. It would also provide a stable regulatory environment to encourage chemical innovation and industry confidence.

Our legislation also contains two improvements, both of which are based on similar provisions from the Security and Accountability For Every, SAFE, Port Act of 2006. The first would direct the Secretary to establish a voluntary Chemical Security Training Program to enhance the capabilities of Federal, State, and local governments, chemical industry personnel, and governmental and nongovernmental emergency response providers to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies that could affect chemical facilities. The second would create a voluntary program to test and evaluate these capabilities.

Not only is the chemical industry vital to our country's economy, but also it is the linchpin to the important advancements and innovations in critical fields such as science, technology, agriculture, medicine, and manufacturing.

As one of the co-authors of the first chemical security law, no one is more conscious than I am of the risks that attacks on chemical facilities pose to the nation. The Department has done a remarkable job developing a comprehensive chemical security program.

If our true intent is to secure high-risk facilities, then it is incumbent upon Congress to allow the Department to continue doing its job implementing CFATS.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 and to recognize the original cosponsors of the bill: Senator Warner, Senator Graham, Senator Snowe, Senator Sanders, Senator Brown of Massachusetts, Senator Merkley, Senator Stabenow, Senator Dodd, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Carper, Senator Pryor and Senator Harkin. This innovative legislation will save consumers money, create American skilled labor jobs, and reduce home energy consumption.

If enacted, HOME STAR will build on existing policies and initiatives that have already proved effective. The program is supported by a broad coalition of over 600 groups including construction contractors, building products and mechanical manufacturers, retail sales businesses, environmental groups and labor advocates.

HOME STAR will provide point-of-sale instant savings to encourage homeowners to install residential energy upgrades such as air sealing, insulation, and high efficiency furnaces and water heaters.

HOME STAR incorporates a two-tiered approach that will offer flexibility to homeowners when choosing efficiency improvements to install. Under the Silver Star program, rebates averaging $1,000 will be offered for the installation of each eligible energy-saving measure such as new insulation and high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, up to maximum of $3,000 per home. Under the Gold Star program, there will be performance-based grants of $3,000 for a 20 percent reduction in home energy consumption and $1,000 for each additional 5 percent of verified energy reduction as determined by a comparison of the energy consumption of the home before and after the retrofit.

In addition to the short-term rebate programs in Home Star, our revised bill includes longer term efficiency tax policies to maintain the momentum for energy efficient home retrofits. These performance- based energy improvement tax credits will encourage the continuation of Gold Star-type whole home retrofits.

HOME STAR will create American jobs in the construction industry, which has lost 1.6 million jobs since December 2007, with unemployment rates topping 25 percent in some regions. HOME STAR leverages private investment to create a strong market for home energy retrofits, and will put hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans back to work as well as stimulating demand for building materials produced by American factories.

Finally, HOME STAR will reduce home energy consumption and dependence on foreign oil. HOME STAR helps Americans pay for cost-effective home improvements, create permanent reductions in household energy bills, and reduce our national carbon footprint. Residential energy efficiency improvements covered by the HOME STAR program reduce energy waste in most homes by 20 to 40 percent. When combined with low-interest financing, these retrofits can be cash-flow positive upon project completion. An initiative with a potential to retrofit over 3 million homes, HOME STAR will achieve significant reductions in building- related greenhouse gas emissions while generating long-term energy savings for American consumers and reducing energy usage by an amount equal to four 300 megawatt power plants.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would transfer administrative jurisdiction of the Valles Caldera National Preserve from the Valles Caldera Trust to the National Park Service. I am pleased that my colleague from New Mexico, Tom Udall, is cosponsoring the bill.

Between the New Mexico communities of Jemez Springs and Los Alamos, lies the Valle Grande, a magnificent valley surrounded by foothills and forested mountains. When standing in this valley, visitors begin to realize they are actually inside a larger bowl-shaped formation. This is the Valles Caldera--one of only three supervolcanoes in the United States. The oldest of the three--having formed 1.25 million years ago-- the Valles Caldera is also the smallest. Yet the caldera rim spans more than 100,000 acres in area whose violent eruption created a volcanic ash plume that stretched from northern Utah to central Kansas. Because of its relatively small size as compared to the two other supervolcanoes in the U.S.--Yellowstone, WY, and Long Valley, CA, the Valles Caldera provides visitors with excellent opportunities to learn about large volcanic eruptions and their impacts on surrounding landscapes while they stand in a single space to experience one of the world's best examples of an intact resurgent caldera. In 1975, the Valles Caldera received formal recognition as an outstanding and nationally significant geologic resource when it was designated a National Natural Landmark.

As is the case in many parts of New Mexico, the geologic history of the Valles Caldera is inextricably linked to our State's cultural history. For example, the people of Jemez Pueblo chose the area as the best site to establish their community. The Valles Caldera and the adjacent Jemez Mountains provided the Pueblo with an ample food and water supply, natural defenses, and weapon-making materials present in the many obsidian quarries found in the area. In fact, the obsidian was of such high quality that spearheads made from these quarries have been discovered as far away as eastern Mississippi and northern Mexico. Needless to say, the Valles Caldera and the peaks that formed within it are sacred and highly revered by Jemez Pueblo and many other nearby tribes and pueblos.

The volcanic ash dispersed by the volcano's eruption also had a lasting impact on the history of migration and settlement by Ancestral Puebloan people in the region. As the ash and pumice settled, it formed layers of sediment, and over time, rivers helped to carve these layers into deep canyons. Archeologists have found evidence of nomadic tribes following large mammals into the region, and Ancestral Puebloans built homes alongside and into the soft canyon walls. Many of these awe- inspiring settlements are protected in Bandelier National Monument, where the National Park Service educates visitors about how the unique volcanic history of the Valles Caldera made these settlements possible.

There is no question that this area is worthy of Federal protection, and efforts to preserve this area were proposed as early as 1899. However, it was only ten years ago that the Federal government was finally able to acquire this property for the American people. At that time, Senator Domenici and I were successful in passing the Valles Caldera Preservation Act which authorized the acquisition of the property and established an experimental framework for the management of the Preserve for a period of 20 years. The legislation established the Valles Caldera Trust, composed of a nine-member board of trustees, whose members are appointed by the President and have particular expertise in fields important to the management of the Preserve. The bill also directed the Trust to manage the Preserve in a manner that would achieve financial self-sustainability after fifteen years. Five years thereafter, the Trust would be Although the individual members have done their best to fulfill the original legislative directives, time has shown in my opinion that this management framework is not the best suited for the long-term management of the Preserve.

Part of the experimental management framework was a requirement that the Valles Caldera Trust manage the Preserve in a manner that would achieve financial self-sustainability while providing for public access and protection of the Preserve's natural and cultural resources. This has proved to be a virtually impossible mandate to satisfy. Since its inception, the Preserve has not received adequate funding under the current arrangement and is unlikely to in the foreseeable future. In addition, most members of the board and outside observers believe the Trust will be unable to achieve the financial self-sustainability requirements called for by the original Act. The Trust has also indicated an infusion of approximately $15 million may be necessary to complete construction and deferred maintenance costs on the Preserve. I do not believe this funding will be forthcoming under the current management and budgetary framework. Moreover, much of the funding responsibility has been laid on the shoulders of Congress to provide the necessary annual funding that is not included in the President's annual budget. This arrangement is not sustainable in my opinion, and the existing statutory termination of the trust is looming.

With that said, the trust and its executive staff have made valuable progress in various areas of management. One prime example is the science and education program established by the Trust. Through the scientific activities on the preserve, the trust has been able to adapt its management based on the ecological demands of the caldera. The trust has promoted the scientific research of flora and fauna on the preserve and the impacts of climate change in the Jemez Mountains to cite a few of their ongoing activities. It is my belief that the transition in management should allow for the retention of the best management practices that the Trust has achieved.

Many New Mexicans have told me that they would like the preserve to be managed by an agency that will expand visitation and recreational opportunities while also ensuring the protection of the preserve's unique resources. Simply put, while my constituents eagerly want more access, they have stated clearly and directly--``Don't overrun it.''

I believe the National Park Service is best suited to manage the preserve while ensuring its long-term conservation.

The National Park Service's mission supports the activities called for most by my constituents, including expanded recreational opportunities, scientific study, and the interpretation of the natural and cultural resources in the preserve. As I discussed earlier, the Preserve provides a world-class opportunity for the interpretation of the geologic history of this unique area and of the fascinating geologic and cultural history that binds the Valles

Caldera and Bandelier National Monument.

Under our proposed legislation, management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve will be transferred to the National Park Service to be administered as a unit of the National Park System. The bill directs the Park Service to manage the Preserve to protect and preserve its natural and cultural resources, including its nationally significant geologic resources. Hunting and fishing would continue to be allowed, and grazing would also continue to be permitted. The National Park Service would also be directed to establish a science and education program utilizing the best practices created by the trust, as I discussed earlier.

The legislation would maintain the existing character of the preserve while strengthening protections for tribal, cultural, and religious sites and providing access by pueblos to the preserve. In addition, in consultation with the surrounding pueblos, restrictions will be put in place on the development and motorized vehicle use on the sacred volcanic domes within the preserve, similar to the current restrictions on Redondo Peak, the highest peak within the preserve.

I would like to emphasize that in no way is this legislation a criticism of the good work and valuable accomplishments made by the Board Members of the Valles Caldera Trust and the preserve staff. However, I believe having the preserve managed by the National Park Service--an agency with a mission protecting natural, historic, and cultural resources while also providing for public enjoyment of those resources--is more appropriate for the long-term future of the Valles Caldera. In my view, the desire for increased public access, balanced with the need to protect and interpret the Preserve's unique cultural and natural resources, would be best served by National Park Service management of the preserve.

It is my strong belief that transferring management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve to the National Park Service will be the best way to ensure the protection and enjoyment of the preserve over the long term. I urge my colleagues to support the bill as it is considered in the Senate.

The Los Alamos County Council and Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce have submitted resolutions in support of National Park Service management of the preserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these resolutions be printed in the Record.