A bill to amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that funds received as universal service contributions and the universal service support programs established pursuant to that section are not subject to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly known as the Antideficiency Act.

Mr. President, Senator Wyden and I broke new ground together when we introduced the first bipartisan Medicare Prescription drug bill known as SPICE back in 1999. And after Congress passed the historic Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Senator Wyden and I authored legislation aimed at ensuring long term value of the drug benefit to seniors. Today we are joined again by Senator Feinstein, who has been committed with us to forging a bipartisan effort to do what we must today--to move beyond offering a benefit and ensure that we meet our obligation to address affordability.

When we consider both a recent ten year cost estimate of over $534 billion for the prescription drug benefit, and drug price increases which have rapidly outpaced inflation and earnings, we could see the benefit to seniors depreciated--and the cost to the Federal Government increased. So today we introduce The Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act of 2005, MEND, today to manage costs, and assure seniors will receive better value for their dollar.

This bill provides both better consumer information to help beneficiaries and the negotiation power to assure that the power of millions of seniors will result in competitive pricing. That is why two of our colleagues--Senators McCain and Feingold--have now joined us in this effort.

Ours is a simple approach informed by a ``healthy dosage'' of common sense. It simply makes no sense to cut off the ability of the HHS Secretary--the individual who is responsible for the success of this benefit--from negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries. That's why our legislation repeals the ``noninterference provision'' of the prescription drug bill and authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to participate in negotiations on drug prices. Last month when Secretary Thompson announced his departure from HHS, he described several issues of critical concern--one of these was that he had been barred from negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries. He noted, ``I would like to have had the opportunity to negotiate''. And for good reason! The Congressional Budget

Office has confirmed that this negotiation authority can help us realize savings, particularly for drugs that lack significant competition.

When Senator Gregg recently queried Secretary Leavitt about keeping the cost of the Part D program within the original $400 billion budget, and the Secretary asserted that ``It's my practice as a manager to act within my budget''. That will require competition, so I ask why wouldn't we employ negotiation to do what it does best--drive costs down? I asked Secretary Leavitt about negotiation at his confirmation hearing in the Finance Committee and he told me, ``I know little about negotiation authority, but there are times when the national government should play a role''. Well, that time is now. Senator Wyden and I have received our first report on drug price trends from the GAO, and the news isn't good. Since 2000, the increase in prescription drug prices has increase at two to three times the rate of inflation. And worse, we found the rate spiked in 2002, just as we were working to create a prescription drug benefit. It's no wonder that the Congressional Budget Office projects an annual increase of about 8.5 percent in costs, most of which can be attributed to the rise in prices. But we can address this problem, and avoid depreciating the value of this long sought benefit.

To do so you must do more than simply end the prohibition on the Secretary negotiating, you must do more than simply granting permissive authority, you must actually ensure that when needed, the Secretary will negotiate.

So our legislation will not only empower the HHS Secretary to negotiate but, under two circumstances, requires it. For those beneficiaries who do not have access to two prescription drug plans, the Secretary steps in with a fallback plan, and this plan must be competitive--so the Secretary must assure that he negotiates on behalf of those beneficiaries. In addition, the Secretary must be responsive to the needs of the plan providers. When a manufacturer simply is not inclined to negotiate--as may occur when competition for a drug is lacking--then the Secretary must respond when plans request his assistance in negotiations.

Some will say this will compel excessive involvement by the Secretary, but the truth is quite to the contrary. Plans will compete to gain advantage, and it is when they are stymied and cannot achieve reasonable discounts that they will call upon the Secretary. CBO foresaw one such situation--when a drug lacks significant competition-- and those are among our most expensive drugs!

The buying power of millions of seniors should produce substantial savings, but at the same time, competitive plans won't help if seniors cannot identify which plan is right for them.

Senator Wyden and I believe we must arm beneficiaries with information. Our bill requires GAO to track not only the price of drugs under the Medicare program, but calls for that price to be compared to the price negotiated by the VA, DOD and other privately run systems. We will have a measure of how well the seniors are being served.

This bill will also help seniors determine which Medicare plan offers the most savings by requiring that beginning in 2007 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will determine the savings received from each plan by the average Medicare beneficiary, using a market basket of commonly-used drugs. This will allow seniors to make the proverbial ``apples to apples'' comparison. This information will be shared with all beneficiaries during the annual enrollment period each fall, and will be a great help as a starting point for seniors to compare plans.

Our legislation will make annual the report Senator Wyden and I first requested following passage of the prescription drug bill in 2003. We asked the GAO to review changes in drug prices from 2000 through 2003, focusing on the drugs most likely to be used by seniors, and the results are in: Prescription drug prices have increased at two to three times the rate of inflation.

Finally, many advocates and seniors alike have raised questions about the restriction of Medigap policies under the new Part D benefit. The prohibition of the sale of new Medigap policies which include prescription drug coverage has prompted the need for a re-examination of the role of Medigap plans. So we have directed the Secretary to work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to conduct a review of the changes to the Medigap policies and to evaluate the impact on Medicare beneficiaries. It is an important step in looking at the future of Medigap plans. With this report in hand, we will have the information necessary to make wise adjustments.

Some say we don't need to act now. But we have seen drug price increases which are driving costs upwards--contributing to the estimated 8.5 percent annual increases in costs projected by CBO. We simply cannot wait until 2006 to address the issue of drug prices. This bill provides beneficiaries and our government with the information and tools necessary to achieve access to low-cost prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill so that we can pass it quickly.

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Rockefeller and the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senators Stevens and Inouye, to introduce legislation to safeguard the Universal Service Fund, or ``USF,'' the institution that allows rural and low-income Americans to obtain affordable telephone service, allows America's schools and libraries to provide Internet access to all segments of society through the E-Rate program, and permits rural health care providers to obtain telecommunications and Internet services at reduced rates. The concept of Universal Service has been with us nearly as long as the telephone itself, and this bill today marks one key step in ensuring that this vital policy remains intact in the 21st Century.

The legislation introduced today pertains specifically to the Universal Service Administration Company, or ``USAC,'' the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress created to administer the USF. This bill is very similar to S. 2994, a Universal Service bill that I introduced during the last session of Congress and that was passed right before adjournment as part of a larger telecommunications package, H.R. 5419. That bill temporarily exempted USAC from complying with new, arbitrarily-imposed accounting rules that had severely disrupted the E-Rate program and threatened to cause huge spikes in consumers' telephone bills. Many will recall that hundreds of millions of dollars in E-Rate funding for schools and libraries stayed unissued for months because of the accounting rule change, and immediate action was necessary to resolve the problem.

According to USAC's Federal regulators, these new accounting rules needed to be imposed to ensure that the USF was compliant with the federal Anti-Deficiency Act, a law which prevents government agencies from incurring financial obligations beyond the amount that has been appropriated to them by Congress. However, USAC, in administering the USF, does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. Rather, the USF is funded by a regular disbursement, on a more-or-less monthly basis, of monies derived from a surcharge placed on the revenue generated from interstate telephone calls. The existence of this predictable revenue stream negates any of the risks and concerns that the Anti-Deficiency Act was designed to prevent.

After government accounting rules were imposed on USAC last summer, the entire E-Rate program was frozen. On the eve of the start of the school year, this program--which has enabled 93 percent of schools and libraries in the country to hook up to the Internet--was unable to review and act upon the funding recommendations of thousands of applicants. Many recipients of E-Rate funding actually shut off their Internet connections because they had no money available to maintain service. In order to alleviate this problem, Congress decided last fall to exempt the USF from the Anti-Deficiency Act for one year until a permanent solution to this problem was found. Senator Rockefeller and I decided to pursue a one-year exemption in order to ensure speedy passage of the legislation before adjournment, so that schools and libraries could receive their funding again. Today's legislation provides that permanent solution: a permanent exemption from the Anti- Deficiency Act.

Clear precedent exists for such an exemption. Numerous other federal programs already are exempt from complying with the Anti-Deficiency Act, including the National Park Service and the Conservation Trust. Moreover, an exemption is the rational solution to ensure that this problem does not continue to recur. As I previously mentioned, an exemption is particularly appropriate in this instance because the USF has a funding mechanism different from most federal programs. The USF functioned very well for many years utilizing the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used by the entire American business world. Trying to engraft special government rules onto USF is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole. And the result would be another stoppage in E-Rate--and likely the USF Rural High Cost Fund as well-- and also a spike in the USF surcharge on consumers' telephone bills.

Finally, I want to ensure my colleagues that a permanent exemption from the Anti-Deficiency Act poses no risk of increased fraud or abuse in the E-Rate Program or in Universal Service as a whole. Some well- publicized abuses of E-Rate did in fact occur, and I will fully support efforts to stamp out such government waste. But the Federal Communications Commission has repeatedly stated that there is absolutely no connection between the Anti-Deficiency Act land the ability of the Inspector General to effectively monitor the program to stamp out waste, fraud, and abuse. As such, government waste cannot be used as a valid reason for opposing this bill.

Last fall we undertook a bipartisan effort among Members on the committees of jurisdiction in both Houses of Congress to enact a temporary exemption for the USF from unnecessary, burdensome regulations. In undertaking that effort we worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission, and enjoyed widespread support among the telecom industry, educators, and State and local governments. I am grateful of the continuing bipartisan support of the Chairman and Ranking Member, as well as of Senator Rockefeller, and it is my hope that we can proceed in similar fashion to make this exemption permanent.

Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Abrupt Climate Change Research Act of 2005, legislation which will address the critical, comprehensive and integrated research needed for abrupt climate change. In the 108th, this legislation was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee. Its merits are just as pressing, if not more critical, for the 109th Congress as the legislation calls for developing and coordinating a research program over 6 years aimed at understanding, assessing, and predicting both human-induced and natural processes of abrupt climate change.

The abrupt climate change research issue is one that the Maine Senate delegation has been working on for the past 3\1/2\ years, the genesis of which goes back to a Climate Change Conference in Maine in October 2001, which was attended by a wide array of stakeholders in the State who have been active in climate change issues for a number of years.

I believe we all ought to be concerned by the picture scientific research is painting, which points to the reality and potential impact of abrupt shifts in climate. The December 2001 National Academy of Sciences report documented a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests our global climate can swing abruptly, not gradually over time. Moreover, such sudden jumps, and I quote from the Academies' report, ``are not only possible but likely in the future.''

Rather than dismiss this, as some have, as the ``science de jour'' I prefer to take this as a serious warning, based on the best available evidence and analysis. The risk of complacency is to gamble immense environmental and societal consequences. That's why the NAS report urged that a new research program be initiated to examine the potential impact of a sudden change in climate in response to global warming. And that's also why, back in May of 2002, when NOAA's Admiral Lautenbacher was before the Commerce Committee testifying on NOAA's FY 2003 Budget, I raised the need for abrupt climate change studies, and the Admiral agreed this is a pressing priority. Since the introduction of the research bill in the 108th Congress, NOAA, in a January 15, 2004 report, stated that calendar year 2003 tied 2002 as the 2nd warmest year on record.

Mr. President, as co-chair of the independent International Climate Change Taskforce, I was pleased to disseminate to my colleagues the recently published Taskforce report, ``Meeting the Climate Challenge.'' The ICCT includes leaders from public service, science, business and civil society, from both developed and developing countries. Our goal was to find common ground through recommendations that could be helpful to all governments and policymakers worldwide for developing solutions to address climate change.

Indeed, our first recommendation calls for a long-term objective to prevent global average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Centigrade, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above the pre-industrial level by 2100. This target would limit the extent and magnitude of the impacts of climate change if all countries take various actions. I will ask unanimous consent to submit the ICCT's ten recommendations for the Record. In the upcoming weeks and months, I will be introducing legislation that reflects these public policy recommendations.

The temperature goal is crucial to the debate on abrupt climate change because, if the earth goes beyond the 2 degree C level, scientists have suggested that risks to both ecosystems and humans increase significantly. As the risks of accelerated or--as our report stated--``runaway'' climate change increases, a ``tipping point'' could be reached that would include the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, leading to the rise of sea levels.

On this score, abrupt and paleoclimate research can greatly enhance the evolving body of scientific evidence, and that is why Senator Lautenberg and I spearheaded the effort last year to restore the FY2005 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, research programs that will enable us to examine past climate change patterns. This information will guide the development of future models to assist both scientists and policymakers to improve their understanding of climate change through, for instance, the CORC-ARCHES program and paleo- climate research. The University of Maine, under the direction of Dr. George Denton, has been part of the decades-long consortium that has been studying deep ocean currents in the Weddell Sea in Antarctica, and ice core samples from northern latitudes, which is helping scientists command a greater understanding of abrupt climate change.

There have also been other, newer scientific reports that should give us great pause. Among those reports, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment states, ``Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades. Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong arctic warming. These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming.''

There is scientific observational evidence that indicates that regional changes in climate, particularly increases in temperature, are already affecting a diverse set of physical and biological systems in many parts of the

world. Off the coast of Canada lies a 150-square mile, 100-foot thick mass of ice that has existed on the coast for 3,000 years, but it is now disintegrating. That melting has been accelerating over the past 2 years. In addition, coral reefs, an irreplaceable marine resource around the world, are under tremendous stress as coral bleaching is induced by high water temperatures. Indeed, there are reports of a massive region-wide decline of coral which supports a huge variety of sea life across the entire Caribbean Basin.

As we turn to the future, we should harbor no illusions that we are looking at a timetable measured in epochs. We are talking about tens of thousands of years. To the contrary, observed changes tell us that the snows of Kilimanjaro could vanish in 15 years, the glaciers in the Bolivian Andes that once appeared indestructible may disappear in another 10 years, and in Alaska, where the average temperature has risen almost 5 and one half degrees over the past 30 years, there is evidence of melting permafrost and dying forests.

So my question is, what are we waiting for? Is this the kind of legacy we want to leave to future generations and the next millennium? Why not apply now the lessons of the past and present?

Indeed, if ``past is prologue,'' and I believe it is, this bill will improve our understanding of climate change by calling for research to bolster existing, global records of past abrupt climate change, through the study of ice cores, for instance. In this manner we can improve scientific understanding of the mechanisms of abrupt climate change, and incorporate this knowledge into current scientific models. Even for those who question prevailing scientific opinion on the climate change issue, this bill should hold the appeal of increasing our stock of knowledge, wherever it may lead.

In the final analysis, we need to carry out research that will allow us to gauge climate change secrets of the past, so we in turn might develop future models that will assist both scientists and policymakers in understanding climate change. The reality is, there is no doubt our global climate has changed in the past. There should similarly be no question that it would be beneficial to understand the manner in which that change has occurred and why, and so I urge my colleague's support for this legislation, and will work for its passage out of the Commerce Committee and to the Senate floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Summary of Main Recommendations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself, Senator Ensign and Senator Bennett to introduce this bill, which will establish a National Heritage Route in eastern Nevada and western Utah.

National Heritage areas, corridors, and routes are designated regions in which residents and businesses, as well as local and tribal governments join together in partnership to conserve and celebrate cultural heritage and special landscapes. The Great Basin National Heritage Route includes historic mining camps and ghost towns, Mormon and other pioneer settlements, as well as Native American communities. The Route passes through classic Great Basin country along the trails of the Pony Express and the Overland Stage. Cultural resources within the route include highly valued Native American archaeological sites dating back to the Fremont Culture.

The creation of this Heritage Route will bring much deserved attention to the Great Basin's natural wonders. Passing through Millard County, UT, and parts of the Duckwater Reservation and White Pine County in Nevada, the Route contains items of great biological and geological interest. In Nevada, it encompasses forests of bristlecone pine, the oldest living things on the earth. In Utah, the Route includes native Bonneville cutthroat trout as well as other distinctive species and ecological communities.

Designation of the corridor as a Heritage Route will also ensure long-term protection of key educational and recreational opportunities without compromising traditional local use of the land. The Great Basin National Heritage Route will provide a framework for celebrating Nevada's and Utah's rich historic, archaeological, cultural, and natural resources for both visitors and residents.

The bill will establish a board of directors consisting of local officials from both counties and tribes to manage the designated route. The board will develop a management plan within 3 years of the bill's passage, and the Secretary of the Interior will enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Board of Directors for the management of the resources of the heritage route. Our legislation authorizes up to $10 million to carry out the Act but limits Federal funding to no more than 50 percent of the project's cost. The bill allows the Secretary to provide assistance for 15 years after the bill is enacted.

Our bill benefits not just the people of Nevada and Utah, but citizens of every State in our Union. It highlights an area of outstanding cultural and natural value and brings people together to celebrate common values and a common history of which we all can be proud.

I was pleased that my distinguished colleagues recognized the value of this legislation during the 108th Congress and supported its passage by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and by the Senate as a whole. I look forward to working with my friends to move this bill in a timely manner during the current session.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dandini Research Park Transfer Act on behalf of myself and Senator Ensign. This bill will transfer an important tract of land in Washoe County, NV, to the University and Community College System of Nevada.

The University of Nevada holds two patents from the Bureau of Land Management for approximately 467 acres of public land located north of downtown Reno. In the early 1970s, the land was patented to the university pursuant to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Now known as the Dandini Research Park, it is the home of Truckee Meadows Community College and the Desert Research Institute's Northern Nevada Science Center.

Truckee Meadows Community College and its predecessor, Western Nevada Community College, have provided educational programs and opportunities to the residents of Reno, Sparks, and the surrounding communities for over 30 years. Construction of the College's facilities on the Dandini campus began in 1975, shortly after conveyance of the original patents.

For over 25 years the Desert Research Institute has excelled in applied scientific research and the application of technologies to improve people's lives in Nevada and throughout the world. Its three core divisions of Atmospheric, Hydrologic, and Earth and Ecosystem Sciences cooperate with two interdisciplinary centers to provide innovative solutions to pressing environmental problems. The Center for Arid Lands Environmental Management and the Center for Watersheds and Environmental Sustainability apply scientific understanding to the effective management of natural resources while addressing our needs for economic diversification and science-based educational opportunities. In doing so, DRI undertakes fundamental scientific research in Nevada and around the globe. For example, as a key participant in the U.S. Geological Survey Water Research Program, DRI plays a critical role in identifying and helping protect the region's scarce water resources.

DRI shares its facility with the Western Regional Climate Center, one of six regional climate centers operating under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate program. The Western Regional Climate Center conducts applied research and provides high quality climate data and information pertaining to the western United States.

The Desert Research Institute wishes to expand its Northern Nevada Science Center. DRI is considering an innovative means of financing the expansion, which would involve a private developer who would build and finance the expansion and lease it back to DRI. The private developers with whom DRI has discussed the proposal, as well as the Institute's counsel, however, have pointed out that the terms of the patents and the restrictions imposed by the Recreation and Public Purposes Act represent obstacles to such an arrangement.

Truckee Meadows Community College and the Northern Nevada Science Center are exceptional assets of the scientific and educational community in the Truckee Meadows. The Center serves not only the citizens of Washoe County, but the needs of all Nevadans and the western United States as well. It deserves the opportunity to grow and prosper with the community--one of the fastest-growing communities in the Nation.

The bill Senator Ensign and I present to you today simply directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey this property from the Bureau of Land Management to the University and Community College System of Nevada. Because of the overwhelming public benefit provided by the Center, we ask that the land be conveyed for free, but that the University cover the costs of the transaction.

During the 108th Congress this legislation received strong support from my colleagues and was passed by both the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate as a whole. I look forward to working with my fellow senators during this session to usher this important legislation towards final passage.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pahrump American Legion Post Land Conveyance Act for myself and Senator Ensign. This Act will transfer approximately 5 acres of BLM land in Pahrump, NV, to the American Legion for the purpose of constructing a post home and other facilities that will benefit veterans' groups and the local community.

The American Legion and other non-profit organizations that represent our Nation's veterans in the vicinity of Pahrump have tripled in size over the last 10 years. The local memberships of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American Veterans will soon exceed 1,000 members, and these groups will continue to expand as Pahrump draws more and more new residents.

The existing facility used by the veterans in Pahrump was built by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in the 1960s. It is much too small and not at all adequate for the veterans' current needs. The nearest facility that can accommodate them is located in Las Vegas more than 60 miles away.

The Pahrump American Legion would like to build a post building, veterans' garden, and memorial park. These new facilities would benefit not only the local veterans, but would be made available--at no cost-- for community activities. The American Legion has tried for over six years to acquire a suitable tract of land to provide a home for a new veterans center. The Legion started a pledge campaign and raised over $16,000 for the building fund before the parcel of land they sought to acquire was removed from consideration by the BLM. Unfortunately, other tracts of land that might represent alternative sites in Pahrump are not suitable.

This situation is truly regrettable. Without a home, the Pahrump American Legion Post can't offer the kind of services and programs that the veterans in the area deserve. Our veterans aren't the only ones who are suffering, either. All across the United States, the American Legion is deservedly famous for supporting community activities like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, as well as the National Oratorical Contest, American Legion Baseball, Girls and Boys State, and other activities for young people. All of these worthy groups and projects would benefit from the construction of a new post home, and from the conveyance of this small parcel of federal land. In sum, this bill is good for veterans, good for kids, and good for hard-working Nevada families.

Our bill simply directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey this property from the Bureau of Land Management to American Legion ``Edward H McDaniel'' Post No. 22 in Pahrump. Because of the great public benefit such a facility will provide, we ask that the land be conveyed for free, but that the American Legion cover the costs of the transaction.

I was pleased that my distinguished colleagues recognized the value of this legislation during the 108th Congress and supported its passage by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and by the Senate as a whole. I look forward to working with my friends to move this bill in a timely manner during the current session.

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

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to introduce this bill, which will address a long standing public land issue in central Nevada. As you may know, the Federal Government controls over 87 percent of the lands in the State of Nevada. This means that Nevadans must frequently seek the assistance of Congress to deal with land issues that would otherwise be relatively uncomplicated. Today we offer a bill to address a simple land ownership issue in Lander and Eureka Counties.

This bill would convey two small cemeteries in central Nevada from federal control back to the local communities to which they should belong. The cemeteries in question the Kingston Cemetery in Lander County and the Maiden's Grave Cemetery in Eureka County--were first established by pioneers and immigrants who settled the isolated high desert valleys of the Great Basin in the mid-1800s. These same pioneers created the Kingston and Maiden's Grave cemeteries to serve as sacred resting places for friends and family. Unfortunately, years after their founding, the private nature of these lands was overlooked and the cemeteries were placed in the hands of federal land management agencies. Today much of the original Kingston Cemetery is on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Maiden's Grave Cemetery in Beowawe sits on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Under current law, these agencies must sell the cemeteries back to the communities at fair market value. However, these historic cemeteries were established prior to the designation of the Federal agencies that now manage them. For years, Lander County has been required to lease much of the Kingston Cemetery from the Forest

Service. The Forest Service previously sold approximately 1 acre to the Town of Kingston, but this land transfer did not allow for the protection of uncharted graves or for the implementation of the communty' s original site plan.

Because the people of Beowawe and Kingston should not have to buy or lease cemeteries that are rightfully theirs, our bill provides for the simple conveyance of the Maiden's Grave Cemetery to Eureka County and the balance of the original location of the Kingston Cemetery to Lander County, NV. The conveyances provided by this bill will benefit our federal land managers as well as our rural communities. The disposal of these small parcels of land for no consideration will benefit the United States because they represent isolated tracts that prove difficult to manage for public use.

In the 108th Congress I was pleased that this bill received approval from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and from the Senate as a whole. I look forward to working with my colleagues to complete this small conveyance during the current Congress. It is time that we restore ownership of these two small rural cemeteries to the communities to which they rightfully belong.

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

Mr. President, pretty soon we will be coming to the last round of amendments to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. When he is on the floor, I will thank, publicly and personally, the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby. We certainly worked on a bipartisan basis to move this bill, to accomplish national objectives, and to respond to the compelling human and financial needs of our neighbors in the Gulf States. Moving this legislation has been enjoyable because there has been such a spirit of bipartisan cooperation. Senators have worked on their amendments. They have offered them jointly. In a few minutes, we will be voting on an amendment by Senator Snowe of Maine and John Kerry of Massachusetts to help small business, particularly, in relation to Katrina. That has been the example throughout.

As the ranking member on this new subcommittee, I hope the spirit of the Senate, in moving forward on this bill, will be the spirit of the Senate all the time. We need more of that. We need more civility. We need more collegiality and more of that spirit of ``let's get it done'' and ``let's get it done together.''

There were many issues that were new to me, at least the depth of the national problem. We are all familiar with Katrina. One of the things that came up was the whole methamphetamine issue, which seems to have the country in its grips, to listen to the Senators from North Dakota talk about what it means in a rural State, to listen to other Senators who have come in either with individual projects or with national issues. Again, in a spirit of bipartisanship, Senators Dayton and Chambliss came in with a request to restore over $200 million to fight this scourge that seems to be gripping people at all economic levels. The methamphetamine issue has reached epidemic levels. That bipartisan support added money to the budget and added resources for local communities.

Another champion, of course, was the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell. She offered an amendment for $20 million on the Hot Spot Program. Where are the real hotspots of meth? We worked with her to adopt that amendment. We thank her and particularly the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, for being strong advocates. Every other Senator came to me and said: We are glad this is in the bill.

Senator Cantwell, focusing on the hotspots, sends vital Federal support to law enforcement officers and first responders who are on the frontlines of the meth epidemic. Actually, those crime fighters have a great friend in Senator Cantwell.

We thank everyone who has helped move this legislation. We are looking forward to moving to final passage. We have two more amendments, and then we will move to final passage. Again, the spirit of the Senate has been wonderful. We are meeting real needs--whether it is Katrina, fighting the methamphetamine epidemic, providing weather services, and so on.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first of all, once again, we are coming now to the final aspects of this bill. We have been able to achieve this because of the wonderful bipartisan support that existed between Senator Shelby, myself, and our staffs. We want to thank them for doing that. I will thank them as we go into wrapup.

Our colleagues, we thank them again for their cooperation in moving the amendments, working on a bipartisan basis. And now as we go to the Snowe-Kerry amendment and the vote, we ask Senators who have those outstanding amendments to consult with the floor and leadership staff, and ourselves as well, because we think we could have a vote--not promptly but expeditiously--after the conclusion of the Snowe-Kerry amendment.

Again, I say to my colleagues to come, vote, stick around, let's work together, and we can finish our bill. People need this bill. It funds the FBI. It funds Katrina help. It funds the methamphetamine help about which we have been talking, and our very important Weather Service. There are so many provisions in it.

I yield the floor and look forward to the vote.

Amendment No. 1717

Mr. President, before we move to the vote on the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw Bingaman amendment No. 1706.

I thank the Chair.

I ask for regular order.

Amendment No. 1678

Mr. President, we have no objection.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, only to say that as we move to the closing of this bill, I want to thank Senator Shelby and his staff for all the many courtesies. It has been an outstanding way to move this bill.

I do not object to the Senator's request.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I say to my colleague from Florida that I understand the importance, to the Gulf states and the Nation, of providing funding for research and analysis of weather systems. The Senator from Florida has been a leader on this issue. While in these tight budget times, we are unable to fund every worthy program, I will continue to work with him to ensure that our Nation has the very best research available to understand hurricanes and other environmental concerns.

It is wonderful to see collaboration between the Federal Government and our Nation's top universities, and we should support those efforts whenever possible. In these tight budget times, it is difficult to fund every deserving project such as this one. I will work with the Senator from Florida so that we can find ways to further partnerships like these.

We have all become aware of the dangers of exposure to contaminated water and the health risks to residents, first responders and volunteers. Many challenges lay ahead, as flooded gulf communities continue to pump out this contaminated water as we speak.

I thank the Senator from New York for bringing this program to my attention and I will work with him to find ways to further this important program.

Noaa's National Weather Service

Let me be clear, I am absolutely opposed to efforts to privatize the weather service. The National Weather Service must continue to provide forecasts and warnings through its website and other sources without limitation. The National Weather Service provides critical information to our citizens and saves lives and livelihoods and it must continue to do so.

National Science Foundation

Mr. President, I share the views of my colleague from Colorado. Money is tight, but our future competitiveness as a nation hangs on our ability to educate our future scientists and engineers.

It is important to make sure that we encourage our children to take interest in science, technology, engineering and math. It is important to make sure we provide our teachers with the appropriate tools and training so our children will keep that interest. And it is important to research how our students learn science, and to research the best ways to teach them these disciplines.

I would like to see science education funding returned to at least last year's levels and will work toward that goal in conference.

I respectfully join the Senator from Colorado and also ask the Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee to help me reach that goal.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Cantwell for tireless leadership in the fight against meth. Methamphetamine abuse has reached epidemic levels across our country, and by working to ensure that we don't shift the burden onto local communities, Senator Cantwell has given State and local law enforcement an important ally. Accepting her amendment to add $20 million to the hotspots program brings funding for meth State and local enforcement to $80 million. Coupled with the bipartisan addition of $43 million of meth authorization dollars that Senator Cantwell cosponsored and other meth- related funding, this bill makes an enormous Federal commitment to help our State and local effort to fight the meth battle. Senator Cantwell's amendment sends vital Federal support to law enforcement officers and first responder on the front lines of the meth epidemic everywhere. These crimefighters need more funds to help combat this dangerous drug, and Senator Cantwell has fought to give them resources they need. I appreciated her work to improve this bill, as do countless law enforcement officers across America.

Mr. President, as part of H.R. 2862, the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, the Senate has included comprehensive relief assistance for small business harmed by Hurricane Katrina. I am glad we were able to come to agreement on a bipartisan package and I thank Senators Snowe, Kerry, Vitter and Landrieu for their work and for ensuring that we could move forward to pass these provisions so vital to small businesses in the Gulf Coast. One of the key differences between the Snowe-Vitter and Kerry-Landrieu amendments was that the latter included appropriations for the 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program. Our support of the compromise Hurricane Katrina small business package should not be interpreted as our taking a position today on whether to include appropriations for the 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program. While we were not able to address the 7(a) program today, I am aware that there is $79 million included in the House version of our bill for the 7(a) program and that we will be addressing this issue in conference. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the 7(a) program continues to provide access to capital to small businesses across the Nation.

Mr. President, we are now coming to the end of our bill. We thank the leadership for all the help and support they gave us, and also working with the Judiciary Committee to accommodate their schedule.

This is the first time this subcommittee has come out with a bill. We are a newly constituted committee. I have had the chance to work with someone I had worked with in the House. Chairman Shelby and I worked together in the same committee in the House of Representatives. Now we are together in Appropriations. I thank him for working with me in such a collegial and consultive way.

Also, his staff is outstanding: Katherine Hennessey, Jill Long, Nancy Perkins, Art Cameron, Allen Cutler, Shannon Hines, and Ryan Welch.

I also thank my staff: Paul Carliner, Kate Fitzpatrick, Gabrielle Batkin,

and Alexa Sewell, who is not here today because she has a new baby.

So I thank everyone because I think we are about to pass a good bill. I think the Senate can be very proud of this bill because we support law enforcement at all levels in our communities. We support technology and development and scientific discovery. And working with agencies such as the National Weather Service, we save lives and livelihoods.

So I am ready to move to final passage and, once again, express my appreciation.

Mr. President, the continuing activation of military reservists to serve in Iraq and the war on terror has imposed a tremendous burden on many of our country's small businesses, their employees and their employees' families. Too many small businesses, when their employees are asked to leave their jobs and serve the Nation, are unable to continue operating successfully and face severe financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. At the same time, more than 40 percent of military reservists and National Guard members suffer a pay cut when they're called to defend our Nation. Most large businesses have the resources to provide supplemental income to resist employees called up for active duty and to replace them with a temporary employee. However, too many small businesses are unable to provide this assistance (or temporarily replace the employee called up to active duty. I believe the Federal Government must take action to help small businesses weather the loss of an employee to active duty and protect small business employees and their families from suffering unnecessary financial hardship to serve our Nation. That is why I am again introducing legislation that will provide an immediate tax credit assist both military reservists who are called to active duty and the small businesses who must endure their absence.

The Small Business Military Reservist Tax Credit Act that I am introducing today will provide immediate

help to affected small businesses through a Federal income tax credit and a reduced withholding requirement to help pay the difference in salary for a reservist called up to active duty and the cost of temporarily replacing that employee while he or she is serving our Nation. Specifically, the bill will provide a tax credit of up to $21,000 to any very small business, defined as any business with up to 50 employees, whose employee has been called up for active duty. Up to $15,000 for businesses that pay any difference in salary for the activated reservist and up to an additional $6,000 for the business to offset the cost of hiring a temporary replacement. For small manufacturers with up to 100 employees, the bill will provide a tax credit of up to $30,000, up to $20,000 for small manufacturers that pay all or part of the difference in salary for the reservist called to duty and up to $10,000 for small manufacturers to offset the cost of hiring a temporary replacement. This tax credit is critically necessary if we are to immediately help struggling entrepreneurs keep their small businesses running after the loss of an employee to temporary military service. Too many American small manufacturers are already facing a difficult economy and strong international competition. This legislation provides higher thresholds for small manufacturers because they need greater help and they employ more technical workers who typically command higher salaries and are more difficult to replace. It will also help cushion the financial cost of being a citizen solder for our reservists.

To fight our wars and to meet our military responsibilities, the United States supplements its regular, standing military with reservists, citizen soldiers who serve nobly. Since 1973, the United States has built an all-volunteer military of which reservists are an essential part. Our reservists are much more than weekend warriors. When they are called to active duty, they are an essential ingredient of any long-term or significant deployment of American forces. Everyone knows the contributions our reservists have made in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. They have been serving our country with distinction and pride for many years and should not be penalized financially for their honorable service. The use of reservists is a significant way to reduce the costs of maintaining a standing army, and those costs, in lieu of having a critical reservist component, are far higher than the cost of providing the small, targeted tax credit offered by this legislation.

Reservists have become a vital component of U.S. forces in Iraq and the war on terror. On September 14, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13223 authorizing the activation of up to 1 million military reservists for up to 2 years of active duty. Since October 2002, there has been a presidentially approved ceiling of 300,000 on the number of reservists that can be on duty at anyone time. Some 475,000 reserves have been called up cumulatively since the issuance of the original Executive Order. Today, there are about 193,458 reserves on active duty in the war against terrorism. Of the approximately 150,000 troops serving in Iraq, 40 percent are reserves. This number is expected to increase to approximately 50 percent in the near future as current troop deployments mobilize.

Earlier this month, published reports showed that Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, the Commander of the Reserve, has told Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker that the burdens placed on military reservists since the September 11, 2001 attacks, combined with dysfunctional Pentagon policies, have damaged morale and retention and threaten to turn the Army Reserve into a broken force. Lt. Gen. Helmly criticized Pentagon decisions to extend reservists tours in war zones, giving troops as little as 3 days' notice before mobilizations, and calling reservists to active duty after they had served and returned to civilian life. Such policies have strained the Army Reserve to the point that the 200,000 force could be unable to carry out future missions.

Both the Army Reserve and National Guard have suffered shortfalls in recruitment because of the unpredictability, extended call-ups and stop loss policies associated with the Iraq war. National Guard officials said last month that the service must be overhauled.

Everyone knows that small businesses continue to be a most effective at creating new jobs and spurring economic growth nationwide. Small businesses employ over 50 percent of the nation's workforce. Nationwide, small businesses are currently creating 75 percent of new jobs. Furthermore, many of these small businesses provide quality goods and services that are a vital link in the supply chain for our national defense. Many of these small companies need immediate help to keep their business going while their employees are sacrificing for our country in Iraq and elsewhere.

Many of our reservists left their companies in good shape. They were profitable, providing goods or services, creating jobs, adding to the tax base. Our Nation should do everything possible to ensure that upon their return, reservists and their businesses do not suffer unnecessary hardships, which range from impaired operations and financial ruin to deserted clients, layoffs, and even closure. Pedro Sotelo, a 33-year- old veteran from Kansas City, MO, was a reservist for 9 years. From 1997 to 2004 he was called up to active duty 10 times. Each time he was activated, he saw his income drop from $60,000 a year as a small business sheet metal worker to about $30,000 the Army paid him as a staff sergeant. While he was away serving his country, the bills would just keep pilling up. Eventually his credit rating plummeted. The continual financial strain contributed to the end of his first marriage, and after 9 years of service, Mr. Sotelo left the military to take a job selling cars. He is still recovering from the financial ruin created by his service, but I am happy to say that Mr. Sotelo has remarried and was recently promoted to manager at his dealership. Had the bill I introduce today been available for Staff Sergeant Sotelo, his small business employer could have kept his income steady and received a tax credit to cover half of the costs of doing so.

Beyond the hardship of leaving their families, their homes and their regular employment, 41 percent of military reservists and National Guard members, like Staff Sergeant Sotelo, face a pay cut when they're called for active duty in our armed forces. Many of these reservists have families who depend upon that paycheck to survive and can least afford a substantial reduction in pay. Unlike many big businesses that can afford to provide supplemental income to make up for the salary disparity for military reservists called to active duty, most small businesses cannot afford to provide this benefit. This makes it more difficult for small businesses to attract and keep workers. I think it is imperative that we help families of reservists maintain their standard of living while their loved one serves our Nation. We must ensure that our great tradition of citizen soldiers does not fade or stop because of the effect service has on work and family.

Back in 1999, I wrote the Military Reservist Small Business Relief Act, which was enacted into law during the 106th Congress and authorized the Small Business Administration (SBA) to defer existing loan repayments and to reduce the interest rates on direct loans that may be outstanding, including disaster loans, for small businesses that have had a military reservist called up for active duty. It also established a low-interest economic injury loan program administered by the SBA through its disaster loan program. These loans have been available to provide interim operating capital to any small business when the departure of a military reservist for active duty causes economic injury. However, in today's economy, many small businesses are unable to take on additional debt to continue their operations. These small businesses need immediate tax relief to assist them in hiring a replacement and to pay their reservist worker who is away serving our country.

This bill will help every small business whose owner, manager or employee is called to active duty. Most immediately, this bill will assist those small businesses whose employees are in service in Iraq and elsewhere but the act also applies to future contingency operations, military conflicts, or national emergencies.

By helping our reservists and the small businesses that employ them, we can ensure that our great tradition of

citizen soldiers does not fade or stop because of the effect service has on work and family.

I ask all my colleagues to support this important legislation to help both military reservists and the small businesses they are forced to leave when they are called up for active duty.

Madam President, today Senator Inouye and I introduce the Communications Act of 2006. Just over a month ago, the Senate Commerce Committee concluded a series of 15 hearings on the state of our Nation's communications laws. We looked at what changes in the law would be required to spur innovation, encourage competition, and provide better service at a lower price for consumers. Senator Inouye and I, and the members of our committee heard from dozens of witnesses and still more who have offered comments and suggested language. Our staffs met with literally hundreds of people representing every point of view.

The measure we introduce today is a working draft intended to stimulate discussion and is open for comments and suggestions for change. It attempts to strike a balance between competing industries, consumer groups and local government. Both Senator Inouye and I may propose additional changes based on comments offered by our members or interested parties. We will hold two hearings to take testimony on the draft bill and will listen to proposed changes. It is our hope that through a process of collaboration, we can draft a bill that represents a bipartisan consensus.

The bill includes elements from a number of bills introduced by members of our committee from both sides of the aisle. The Call Home Act that Senator Inouye and I introduced last week would allow the FCC to take any action short of price regulation to reduce rates for members of our Armed Forces who call home. The measure includes thirteen cosponsors from our committee and another twenty-five cosponsors from the Senate at large. The Call Home Act has been endorsed by twenty-five military and veterans organizations.

The overarching theme of the bill we introduce today is deployment of broadband nationwide. Today the United States is less than 16th in adoption of broadband worldwide. We are not only behind most of the developed world, we even lag behind some of the less developed parts of the globe. To address this broadband gap, the bill we introduce today will allow local governments to offer their own broadband service, so long as they do not compete unfairly with the private sector. The provision is based largely on Senator McCain's and Lautenberg's bill, S. 1294, cosponsored by Senator Kerry, but includes elements to protect the private sector from unfair government competition from Senator Ensign's bill, S. 1504 cosponsored by McCain, Lott, DeMint, and Vitter.

Senator McCain was also very helpful in crafting the interoperability section of the bill. After Hurricane Katrina and later Wilma and Rita, the committee held a series of hearings on problems communications companies had in restoring service and the difficulties first responders had in talking to one another even when service had been fully restored. During those difficult times, Senators Lott and Vitter played an important role in highlighting the importance of interoperability in times of crisis. As part of the reconciliation bill adopted last December, this committee addressed the interoperability problem by dedicating $1 billion to interoperability programs. However, because of the Byrd rule, it was not possible to provide guidance on how the money should be spent. The interoperability bill we introduce today adopts many of the recommendations offered by a variety of groups from the 911 Commission to the recent White House report. It embraces key concepts such as Planning and interoperable equipment grants which have been discussed with the Department of Homeland Security and various public safety groups.

The bill will also crate prepositioned technology caches in every State in the Union with some redundant regional caches for national emergencies--an idea offered by Senator Inouye and his staff. These caches will include equipment like satellite telephones that work even when towers and power lines have been destroyed.

Senator Kerry has also been in involved in the interoperability discussion, and I believe he will have suggestions as we move forward on how to build redundancy into our communications system.

One of the centerpieces of the legislation is video franchising reform. The bill is based largely on legislation introduced by Senator Ensign, S. 1504, cosponsored by Senators McCain, Lott, DeMint, and Vitter. Senators Smith and Rockefeller introduced a similar measure. Consistent with the Inouye/Burns principles, the measure retains local franchise involvement, but is based off of the Alaska model which uses expedited procedures, consistent with the shot clock principles in the Inouye/Burns principles.

By using a standard application, but preserving the cities' right to manage their own rights of way and providing the revenues needed to operate their institutional networks as well as their PEG channels, the bill seeks to balance the needs of those who want to deploy broadband networks for video services and the desires of cities to continue the services they offer today. We also sought to address the needs of the existing cable companies by offering them the same terms as new entrants immediately upon approval of the competitor's franchise application. Additionally, a cable company can avail itself of the new streamlined rules after its current franchise agreement expires.

Another issue addressed in the draft bill is access to video content. While satellite companies are barred from hoarding exclusive sports programming, the so-called terrestrial loophole does not impose the same mandate on cable companies. As a result, through acquisition of regional sports networks by cable operators, competition with satellite providers is stymied. The Sports Freedom Act included in this bill is patterned after a provision in the Ensign bill cosponsored by McCain, Lott, DeMint, and Vitter.

Also critical to providing compelling content is the broadcast flag. Broadcasters are reluctant to offer their best programming over the air for fear it could be stolen and distributed worldwide over the Internet with no regard to copyright protection. This has been a critical issue for Senator Inouye on the video side and for Senator Frist on the audio side. Senators Smith and Boxer took on this issue and developed a draft bill which became the basis for the legislation we introduce today. It attempted to strike a balance between the needs of broadcasters and the desires of the consumer electronic industry not to have the Federal Government pick technology winners and losers. While interested parties may have suggestions for improving the bill, we believe it is a good first step in addressing their concerns. I commend Senators Smith and Boxer for their hard work on this issue.

The measure includes a white space provision modeled after S. 2327, the Allen-Kerry WIN Act supported by Senators Sununu, Dorgan, and Boxer. It adds some protections the broadcasters requested to prevent harmful interference by requiring any new device to be tested in an FCC certified lab before deployment. The concept of using vacant TV channels for broadband deployment through Wi-Fi, Wi-Max and other technologies is strongly endorsed by consumer groups and the technology community. Also, each can play an important role in bringing broadband to rural America.

The legislation includes guidance on the DTV transition that was not possible in the reconciliation bill because of the Byrd rule. Much of the language we included is based on a provision Senator Inouye worked on to Address consumer education issues. It also includes an international coordination element requested by Senator Hutchison to address interference on the US-Mexico border that will also

benefit other border states, such as Alaska, Washington, Montana, North Dakota, and Maine. In addition, we have included S. 900, Senator McCain's Television Information Enhancement for the visually impaired act which Senator Inouye and I cosponsored, along with Senator Smith. That bill authorizes an existing FCC rule requiring TV stations to offer some video description of television shows so blind listeners will be able to follow the action. The existing rule was struck down by the courts on the grounds that the FCC lacked authority for such a rule. Today we provide them the authority they need. As the son of a father who was blind for a period of time, this is an issue of personal interest to me.

Last, but most important to me is universal service reform. Our measure is based on a series of bills. The contribution mechanism we adopted is based on S. 2256, the Burns USF bill and S. 1583, the Smith- Dorgan measure which was also cosponsored by Senator Pryor. It allows the FCC to adopt a contribution mechanism based on revenues, numbers, or connections. Such a step is needed to stabilize this important program. it also includes Senator Smith's concept of a separate broadband fund to address the needs of unserved areas.

We have included S. 241, the Snowe-Rockefeller ADA exemption after failing in our efforts to work out this issue with the Administration. While the Burns and Smith-Dorgan-Pryor bills were the basis for our USF title, we also used important concepts from H.R. 5072, the Terry- Boucher bill, and we applaud them for their leadership in the House and thank them for their contribution to this effort. Lastly, we have included S. 2378, the Inouye measure that will improve the e-rate program for Native Americans. Senators McCain, Dorgan, and I joined in cosponsoring that bill.

This bill includes provisions throughout that will benefit consumers. It encourages competition and cost savings in the video market. It addresses some critical needs in rural America. And, it encourages deployment of broadband so that our Nation can remain competitive.

This is a comprehensive bill, as indicated by my comments, that we have researched. The bill is introduced by every Member of the Senate. We are attempting to collate them so we can have one communications act for this year. This will be the Communications Act of 2006.

I urge the Senate to review it. We look forward to having their comments.