I also agree with the decision, President Polnut. While I agree with the principle of this bill, it just doesn't seem to pass Constitutional muster (and the Senate shouldn't be passing bills that lack constitutionality; remember, the PPT even has the power to remove what he deems as unconstitutional legislation from the floor at his discretion.
That said, the obvious (and Constitutional) alternative would be to replace this bill's direct mandate on regional/local government. Just modify the bill so that any regional/local government that has recieved Federal funding for a land conservation/restoration project must abide by these restrictions for those projects. In addition, you can declare that any government that doesn't abide by these restrictions indefinitely loses Federal funding for such projects whenever they don't abide by the restrictions in this bill; maybe even restrict other Federal grants and funds, even if they're only for tangentially related purposes.
There, that's two different ways to make this bill constitutional, both of which on their own would basically cover everything, and combined certainly would. Hope this helps.
