A concurrent resolution providing that any agreement relating to trade and investment that is negotiated by the executive branch with another country must comply with certain minimum standards.

Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the United States.

Last Congress, in August of 2003, nearly 50 million people in the Northeast and Midwest were affected by a massive power outage. This event emphasized the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages. We must act to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future. That is why I am introducing this bill today to ensure greater reliability in our electricity delivery system.

My bill, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2005, will help achieve reliability and security of the electricity grid in an efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally sound manner. It does so by creating mandatory, nationwide electric reliability standards.

The bill also mandates regional coordination in the siting of transmission facilities, and provides $10 billion dollars in loan guarantees to finance ``smart grid'' technologies that improve the way the grid transmits power.

While a $10 billion dollar investment may seem to be a large investment, it is significantly less than the transmission cost estimates that have circulated following the Northeast blackout. Industry experts estimated that it would cost consumers as much as $100 billion dollars to upgrade transmission systems and site new lines to meet future reliability needs.

However, even this hefty price tag does not factor in the costs of additional generation, does not consider the rising cost of natural gas due to increasing electricity consumption, and does not include the environmental and other social costs of continued expansion of our presently centralized power system. Power lines are expensive and are rarely welcomed by the nearby public. The loan guarantees in the bill will help balance the need for new transmission lines by providing federal resources to help improve existing ones.

In addition to addressing system operation and transmission needs, the bill also promotes sound system management. It establishes a Federal system benefits fund as a match for state programs. Historically, regulated electric utility companies have provided a number of energy-related public services beyond simply supplying electricity that benefit the system as a whole. Such services have included bill payment assistance and energy conservation measures for low-income households, energy efficiency programs for residential and business customers, and pilot programs to promote renewable energy resources. More than 20 states, including my home state of Vermont, have public benefits programs. This bill will provide needed federal matching money to States for these programs. Our states can use these funds. They will be able to move more quickly to deploy these low-cost strategies with federal help.

The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that a federal program to match existing state public benefits programs would save 1.24 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity over 20 years, and cut consumer energy bills by about $100 billion dollars. Mr. President, my bill, which has the potential to save consumers $100 billion dollars is far preferable to raising consumer electricity bills by the $100 billion dollars to raise money for grid expansion. My Vermont constituents would prefer to keep the lights on, and their money in their own pockets. The bill also establishes energy efficiency performance standards for utilities. The United States has experienced tremendous growth in electricity consumption over the past decade. Current estimates are that electricity consumption is increasing at roughly 2 percent per year.

Between 1993 and 1999, U.S. summer peak electricity use alone increased by 95,000 megawatts. This is the equivalent of adding a new, six-state New England to the nation's electricity demand every fourteen months. Energy experts estimate that as much as 50 percent of expected new demand over the next 20 years can be met through consumer efficiency and load management programs. Over the past two decades, utility demand-side efficiency programs have avoided the need for more than 100 300-megawatt power plants. However, with the advent of electricity deregulation, utility spending on these efficiency programs has dropped by almost half. The federal government should seek to correct this trend, and this bill takes a strong first step in that direction by phasing in a requirement that utilities reduce their peak demand for power and their customers' power use between 2006 and 2015.

Finally, the bill enacts standards that enable increased on-site, or distributed, generation to reduce pressure on the grid and lessen the impact of a blackout should one occur. We have an obligation, Mr. President, to ensure that the electricity grid is secure. We currently have a giant system consisting of almost 200,000 miles of interconnecting lines that constantly shift huge amounts of electricity throughout the country. Such a giant and complex system, traversing miles of city and countryside, is inevitably subject to unforseen problems. Simply making it bigger will never take away all uncertainty, nor can it eliminate the vulnerability of the grid to sabotage or terrorist attack. We should do all we can to make certain such vulnerabilities are reduced.

In summary, I am introducing this legislation because I feel that we should be cautious in our assumptions that the answer to our nation's reliability woes lies primarily in building a bigger, more expansive grid. Simply building more transmission lines is not the answer. Investments in energy efficiency and on-site generation can significantly improve the reliability of the nation's electricity grid and in most cases will be cheaper, faster to implement and more environmentally friendly than large-scale grid expansion. We also must fill the regulatory gaps in the system, which my bill does. Congress should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector. In addition, no national reliability program will be effective or complete without strong incentives for demand-side management programs for efficiency and for on-site generation.

We cannot solve today's energy problems with yesterday's solutions. My bill is an innovative approach to ensuring electric reliability by maximizing energy efficiency, regulatory efficiency, and efficient investment. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we cannot afford to do otherwise.

I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to advance energy security and reliability in the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2005 to accelerate the use of clean, domestic renewable energy sources as an integral part of our Nation's electrical generation.

A recent episode of the television show, West Wing, portrayed renewable energy as science fiction. The truth is closer to Reality TV.

Eighteen States, plus the District of Columbia, have already instituted minimum renewable standards. This bill would establish a national renewable portfolio standard requiring that, by the year 2020, 20 percent of U.S. electricity be derived from clean, domestically produced renewable energy including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and wave energy.

As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I think obtaining 20 percent of our country's electricity from renewable energy represents the modest end of what we could achieve.

Let me offer five reasons why I believe we need a national commitment to encourage renewable power.

First, renewable power would help consumers by reducing electricity prices. According to data provided by the Bush administration's Energy Department, a 20 percent renewables requirement similar to that set forth in the bill I am introducing today would lower consumer energy costs by the year 2020. Why? Because adding additional renewables to our energy mix will decrease the pressure on natural gas supplies, bringing overall costs down.

This point is worth repeating. Despite concerns from those in the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, the Department of Energy has consistently found that a mandatory renewable portfolio standard would not raise overall energy costs and would have no significant adverse impact on America's wallets.

Estimates are that reaching 10 percent renewable energy production by the year 2020 could reduce the demand for natural gas by as much as 1.4 trillion cubic feet, and could reduce the price of natural gas by 6 percent. With the higher renewable portfolio standard in my bill, the price reductions are even greater.

I have received letters from the chemical industry expressing deep concern about the high price of natural gas, and imploring me to take steps to help alleviate shortages and reduce costs.

Much to my consternation, however, neither the chemical industry, nor this administration have addressed the obvious link between increasing renewable energy production and easing demand on natural gas supplies. Instead, their solutions have been to open sensitive lands to more drilling, reduce environmental compliance and advance clean coal technologies.

Whatever merits there may be to some of their suggestions, an obvious step that should be taken is diversifying our energy sector and easing the growing demand on natural gas by promoting other clean energies which can be readily produced on American soil.

The second reason for a national commitment to encourage renewable power is the public health and environmental benefits.

Electricity generation is the leading source of U.S. carbon emissions, accounting for over 40 percent of the total. Carbon dioxide emissions are the primary greenhouse gas, contributing to harmful climate change. A 20 percent renewables requirement would, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, reduce carbon emissions from power plants by up to 18 percent by the year 2020.

A 20 percent renewables requirement would also significantly reduce emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants contaminate our water, cause smog and acid rain, and contribute to respiratory illnesses. As a result, a renewable portfolio standard would help alleviate asthma, which has become the most common chronic disease for children.

Coal burning electric power plants are also the largest source of mercury pollution, releasing an estimated 98,000 pounds of mercury directly into the air, and generating an additional 80,000 pounds a year in mercury tainted waste. A renewable portfolio standard would help the estimated five million women and children regularly exposed to mercury at levels that EPA considers unsafe.

And according to the Department of Energy, these public health benefits would be achieved without raising consumer energy costs.

Third, a 20 percent renewable portfolio standard would enhance our national security by diversifying our energy supply. As we increase our reliance on natural gas, much of the demand may have to be met by liquified natural gas shipped to the U.S. from other countries. It is unthinkable that we should sink to greater reliance on foreign fuel imports when we have abundant, inexhaustible renewable energy right here.

Further, much of the U.S. energy system including power plants, refineries, and pipelines, present significant safety and security risks. Renewable energy facilities are generally smaller, more geographically dispersed and do

not involve disposal or transportation of radioactive or combustible materials.

A 20 percent renewable portfolio standard such as I offer today will help bring the costs of on-site generation down even further, making providing your own electricity a reality for a growing number of homes and facilities. In these times when we worry about the potential security of our energy grid, that option becomes increasingly attractive.

Fourth, a national renewable portfolio standard builds on the successful experiments by the States. To date, 18 States, plus the District of Columbia, have adopted mandatory renewable energy standards. These State programs provide excellent incentives for renewable energy. In September 2004, New York created the second- largest new renewable energy market in the country, behind only California, when the state Public Service Commission adopted a standard of 24 percent by 2013. Earlier in 2004, Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode Island also enacted minimum renewable electricity standards.

Texas has one of the most successful state programs. The Texas Renewable portfolio standard was signed into law by then Governor George W. Bush, and administered by Pat Wood, who now chairs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These men know the value of renewable energy. Texas now has enough wind power to run about 300,000 homes a year, with huge benefits to ranchers who can lease acreage for wind turbines.

However, as good as these State efforts are, they are subject to the inherent limitation that they can only address electricity sales and production within their own State boundaries. Yet as we know, electricity generation and transmission are regional in nature. State renewable requirements alone cannot provide the market and other mechanisms necessary to address regional and national electricity transmission.

But these State programs demonstrate that renewables requirements can work, and operate to the benefit of consumers.

Finally, I call for a national commitment to encourage renewable power because a cleaner energy future is in our grasp. The U.S. has the technical capacity to generate 4.5 times its current electricity needs from renewable energy resources. European investment continues to outstrip U.S. markets, but that is changing. Worldwide, approximately 6,500 megawatts of new wind energy generating capacity were installed, amounting to annual sales of about $7 billion. Almost a third of that came from the United States, which installed nearly 1,700 megawatts of new wind energy in 2001, or $1.7 billion worth of new wind energy generating capacity.

Yet, renewable energy still accounts for only a little over 2 percent of U.S. electricity generation.

It is not that we expect this renewable portfolio standard to make conventional energy sources obsolete. Undoubtedly, fossil, nuclear and other fuels will be with us for some time. But isn't it time that we charted our future with cleaner energies? The potential is there, but we have to give it the assistance of market incentives, as we have traditionally done for our more established fuel sources.

I urge my colleagues to again demonstrate our strong commitment to renewables and support my legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce today, along with my colleagues Senators Smith, Collins, Chafee, and Rockefeller, the ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005.'' This legislation is the product of a bipartisan effort to ensure that those individuals in our welfare system who face the toughest barriers to work, such as individuals with disabilities or substance abuse problems, are provided the best opportunity for future success and productivity. This legislation gives states the tools and incentives necessary to assist them in moving individuals from welfare to work.

The current welfare system has been widely regarded as a success in moving individuals off the welfare rolls, and states have been given incentives to do so. While this approach has been regarded as successful, it has one major flaw. Although the states are provided incentives for removing people from the welfare rolls, no incentives exist for placing individuals into sustainable employment. States receive the same credit for moving a welfare recipient into a high paying job as they do for sanctioning that person outright. This perverse incentive has been particularly difficult for the many welfare recipients who have disabilities or struggle with substance abuse problems. In many states it is easier to write these people off than to give them the support necessary to become truly independent.

In Vermont, approximately 15 percent of the welfare caseload has been diagnosed with a disability and receive services through the Vermont Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Vermont's effort to provide these services enables welfare recipients to, move from welfare to work. However, these services are not included in the core work activities allowed under the current welfare law. Vermont receives no credit or incentive for moving these individuals to independence. This policy is wrong. If we truly want welfare to be an initiative that helps people to become independent and self-sufficient, then our policies must reflect our intentions. That is where ``The Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' comes into play.

The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would allow states to count certain rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities and treatment for substance abuse toward work activities. Here's how it works: the legislation would give states the ability to count a welfare recipient who is engaged in work, or work preparation activities, to participate in a drug treatment program for three months. At the end of this 3-month period, the state would be given the opportunity to re- evaluate the status of the individual and decide whether to continue treatment for an additional 3 months. This is the same process that is envisioned in the ``Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act'' that the Finance Committee is planning to consider this spring. The PRIDE approach would then require an individual with a severe barrier to meet the same standard as a non- disabled individual. However, the ``Pathways to Independence Act'' would allow the state to continue treatment for the individual, provided that the individual is meeting at least half of the regular work requirements and following their treatment program for the remaining hours.

This is a common sense proposal. It is consistent with the research on providing effective support programs for people with disabilities and effective treatment programs for people struggling with substance abuse leading to sustainable employment. By allowing states to count these individuals in the ``working'' category, we provide the states with the necessary incentives to engage those most difficult to serve in meaningful ways that will help them to work. It will allow the states to place people with disabilities and substance abuse problems on a pathway to independence.

The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would supply the states with the tools and incentives necessary to provide welfare recipients with the greatest chance for independence and self-sufficiency. If we truly want to take the necessary steps towards achieving this goal and improving upon our current welfare system, this legislation must be part of any welfare reform reauthorization that is enacted.

I would like to thank the members of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities for their help in developing this legislation and their strong letter in support of this initiative. I especially want to thank my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, for his commitment to this legislation and all of our cosponsors in this endeavor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, along with the Senator from Vermont who we will hear from shortly, that will help enhance the openness of the Federal Government. This bill is called the Open Government Act of 2005. It is a bipartisan effort to improve and update our public information laws--particularly the Freedom of Information Act.

The purpose of the bill is to arm the American people with the information they need to make certain that ours remains a government whose legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed. This legislation will significantly expand the accessibility, accountability, and openness of the Federal Government.

Open government, of course, is one of the most basic requirements of a healthy democracy. It allows taxpayers to see where their money is going. It permits the honest exchange of information that ensures government accountability, and it upholds the ideal that government never rules without the consent of the governed. As is so often the case, Abraham Lincoln said it best:

No man is good enough to govern another without that

person's consent.

But achieving the true consent of the governed requires something more than just holding elections every couple of years. What we need is informed consent. Informed consent is impossible without open and accessible government.

It has been nearly a decade since Congress has approved major reforms to the Freedom of Information Act. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not convened an oversight hearing to examine the Freedom of Information Act compliance issue since 1992. And at that time, I believe it is clear that the growth of technology and the Internet has created a real desire among the American people to achieve direct, efficient, and open access to government information.

I thank my colleague from Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who has long been a champion of these issues, for his hard work on this bill. Together our offices have spent a good deal of time meeting with open government advocates. I am proud to say this bill is supported by a broad coalition across the ideological spectrum, because I believe this legislation should not be a partisan or special interest bill. Indeed, it is not.

I ask unanimous consent that these endorsement letters from dozens of watchdog groups across the political spectrum be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. President, as the Senator from Vermont said at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing:

I have always found that every administration, Republican

or Democrat, would love to keep a whole lot of things from

the public. They do something they are proud of, they will

send out a hundred press releases. Otherwise, they will hold

it back. We have the Freedom of Information Act, which is

a very good thing. It keeps both Democratic and Republican

administrations in line.

I agree with that. Essentially, we are talking about human nature. It is only natural that elected officials and Government leaders want recognition for their successes but not their failures. But we, as a healthy democracy, need to know the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The news media, of course, is the main way people get information about the Government. The media pushes Government entities and elected officials, bureaucrats, and agencies to release information that the people have the right to know, occasionally exposing waste, fraud, and abuse--and hopefully more often than that letting the American people know what a good job their public officials are doing.

But we have also seen in recent years an expansion of other outlets for sharing information outside of the mainstream media to online communities, discussion groups, and blogs. I believe all these outlets can and do contribute to the health of our political democracy.

Let me make this clear. This is not just a bill for the media, lest anybody be confused. This is a bill that will benefit every man, woman, and child in the United States of America who cares about the Federal Government, cares about how the Federal Government operates, and ultimately cares about the success of this great democracy.

By reforming our information policies in order to guarantee true access by all citizens to Government records, we will revitalize the informed consent that keeps America free. The Open Government Act contains over a dozen substantive provisions, designed to achieve the following four objectives:

First, it will strengthen the Freedom of Information Act and close loopholes.

Secondly, it will help Freedom of Information Act requesters obtain timely responses to their requests.

Third, it will ensure that agencies have strong incentives to comply with the law in a timely fashion.

Fourth, it will provide Freedom of Information Act officials; that is, people within Government agencies, with all the tools, including the education, they need in order to ensure that our Government remains open and accessible.

This legislation is not just pro-openness, pro-accountability and pro-accessibility; it is also pro-Internet. It contains important congressional findings to reiterate the presumption of openness. It includes a provision for a hotline that enables citizens to track the requests and even allows tracking of those requests via the Internet. As a whole, the Open Government Act reiterates the principle that our Government is based not on the need to know but rather on the right to know.

We all recognize that America's security should never take a back seat. But nor should the claim, without justification, of national security be used as a barrier against allowing taxpayers to know how their money is being spent.

There is a broad consensus across the aisle, the political spectrum, that we currently overclassify Government documents, and that many documents and much information is placed beyond the public view without any real justification. I believe we need a system of classification that strikes the right balance between the need to classify documents in the interest of our national security and our national values of open government.

Our default position of the U.S. Government must be one of openness. If records can be open, they should be open. If there is a good reason to keep something closed, it is the Government that should bear the burden, not the other way around.

Open government is fundamentally an American issue. It is literally necessary to preserve our way of life as a self-governing people. Ensuring the accessibility, accountability, and openness of the Federal Government is a cause worthy of preservation, and I call on my colleagues to join the Senator from Vermont and I today in taking a meaningful step toward that goal.

Finally, before I yield the floor to the Senator from Vermont, let me again express my appreciation to him and his staff. They have worked very closely with my staff. This is one of those good Government initiatives that knows no party affiliation, no ideological affiliation, but is really one that is essential to the preservation of our way of life as a self-governing democracy.

Exhibit 1

Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2005

Led by U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Patrick Leahy, the

OPEN Government Act of 2005 is a bipartisan effort to achieve

meaningful reforms to federal government information laws--

including most notably the Freedom of Information Act of 1966

(``FOIA''). If enacted, the legislation would substantially

enhance and expand the accessibility, accountability, and

openness of the federal government. It has been nearly a

decade since Congress has approved major reforms to FOIA.

Moreover, the Senate Judiciary Committee has not convened an

oversight hearing to examine FOIA compliance issues since

April 30, 1992. (The Senate Homeland Security and

Governmental Affairs Committee, which shares jurisdiction

over federal government information laws with the Judiciary

Committee, has not held a FOIA oversight hearing since 1980.)

This legislation is the culmination of months of extensive

discussions between the offices of Senators Cornyn and Leahy

and various members of the requestor community. The bill is

supported by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and a broad

coalition of organizations across the ideological spectrum,

including:

American Association of Law Libraries

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

American Society of Newspaper Editors

Associated Press Managing Editors

Association of Health Care Journalists

Center for Democracy & Technology

Coalition of Journalists for Open Government

Committee of Concerned Journalists

Education Writers Association

Electronic Privacy Information Center

Federation of American Scientists/Project on Government

Secrecy

Free Congress Foundation/Center for Privacy & Technology

Policy

Freedom of Information Center, University of Missouri

The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas

The Heritage Foundation/Center for Media and Public Policy

Information Trust

National Conference of Editorial Writers

National Freedom of Information Coalition

National Newspaper Association

National Security Archive/George Washington University

Newspaper Association of America

People for the American Way

Project on Government Oversight

Radio-Television News Directors Association

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Society of Environmental Journalists

The Act contains important Congressional findings to

reiterate and reinforce the view that the Freedom of

Information Act establishes a presumption of openness, and

that our government is based not on the need to know, but

upon the fundamental right to know. The Act also contains

over a dozen substantive provisions, designed to achieve the

following four objectives:

(1) Strengthen FOIA and close loopholes

(2) Help FOIA requestors obtain timely responses to their

requests

(3) Ensure that agencies-have strong incentives to act on

FOIA requests in a timely fashion

(4) Provide FOIA officials with all of the tools they need to

ensure that our government remains open and accessible

strengthen foia and close loopholes

Ensure that FOIA applies when agency recordkeeping

functions are outsourced

Establish a new open government impact statement, by

requiring that any future Congressional attempt to create a

new FOIA exemption be expressly stated within the text of the

legislation

Impose annual reporting requirement on usage of the DHS

disclosure exemption for critical infrastructure information

Protect access to FOIA fee waivers for legitimate

journalists, regardless of institutional association--

including bloggers and other Internet-based journalists

Provide reliable reporting of FOIA performance, by

requiring agencies to distinguish between first person

requests for personal information and other kinds of requests

help foia requestors obtain timely responses

Establish FOIA hotline services, either by telephone or on

the Internet, to enable requestors to track the status of

their requests

Create a new FOIA ombudsman, located at the Administrative

Conference of the United States, to review agency FOIA

compliance and provide alternatives to litigation

Authorize reasonable recovery of attorney fees when

litigation is inevitable

ensure that agencies have strong incentives to act on foia requests in

timely fashion

Restore meaningful deadlines for agency action by ensuring

that the 20-day statutory clock runs immediately upon the

receipt of the request

Impose real consequences on federal agencies for missing

statutory deadlines

Enhance authority of the Office of Special Counsel to take

disciplinary action against government officials who

arbitrarily and capriciously deny disclosure

Strengthen reporting requirements on FOIA compliance to

identify agencies plagued by excessive delay, and to identify

excessive delays in fee status determinations

provide foia officials with the tools they need to ensure that our

government remains open and accessible

Improve personnel policies for FOIA officials to enhance

agency FOIA performance

Examine the need for FOIA awareness training for federal

employees

Determine appropriate funding levels needed to ensure

agency FOIA compliance

Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2005

Section-by-Section Analysis

Sec. 1. Short Title. The Open Government Act of 2005.

Sec. 2. Findings. The findings reiterate the intent of

Congress upon enacting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),

5 D.S.C. 552 as amended, and restate FOIA's presumption in

favor of disclosure.

Sec. 3. Protection of Fee Status for News Media. This

section amends 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) to make clear that

independent journalists are not barred from obtaining fee

waivers solely because they lack an institutional affiliation

with a recognized news media entity. In determining whether

to grant a fee waiver, an agency shall consider the prior

publication history of the requestor. If the requestor has no

prior publication history and no current affiliation with a

news organization, the agency shall review the requestor's

plans for disseminating the requested material and whether

those plans include distributing the material to a reasonably

broad audience.

Sec. 4. Recovery of Attorney Fees and Litigation Costs.

This section, the so-called Buckhannon fix, amends 5 U.S.C.

552(a)(4)(E) to clarify that a complainant has substantially

prevailed in a FOIA lawsuit, and is eligible to recover

attorney fees, if the complainant has obtained a substantial

part of his requested relief through a judicial or

administrative order or if the pursuit of a claim was the

catalyst for the voluntary or unilateral change in position

by the opposing party. The section responds to the Supreme

Court's ruling in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v.

West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S.

598 (2001), which eliminated the ``catalyst theory'' of

attorney fee recovery under certain Federal civil rights

laws. FOIA requestors have raised concerns that the holding

in Buckhannon could be extended to FOIA cases. This section

preserves the ``catalyst theory'' in FOIA litigation.

Sec. 5. Disciplinary Actions for Arbitrary and Capricious

Rejections of Requests. FOIA currently requires that when a

court finds that agency personnel have acted arbitrarily or

capriciously with respect to withholding documents, the

Office of Special Counsel

shall determine whether disciplinary action against the

involved personnel is warranted. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(F).

This section of the bill amends FOIA to require the Attorney

General to notify the Office of Special Counsel of any such

court finding and to report the same to Congress. It further

requires the Office of Special Counsel to report annually to

Congress on any actions taken by the Special Counsel to

investigate cases of this type.

Sec. 6. Time Limits for Agencies to Act on Requests. The

section clarifies that the 20-day time limit on responding to

a FOIA request commences on the date on which the request is

first received by the agency. Further, the section states

that if the agency fails to respond within the 20-day limit,

the agency may not then assert any FOIA exemption under 5

U.S.C. 552(b), except under limited circumstances such as

endangerment to national security or disclosure of personal

private information protected by the Privacy Act of 1974,

unless the agency can demonstrate, by clear and convincing

evidence, good cause for failure to comply with the time

limits.

Sec. 7. Individualized Tracking Numbers for Requests and

Status Information. Requires agencies to establish tracking

systems by assigning a tracking number to each FOIA

request: notifying a requestor of the tracking number

within ten days of receiving a request; and establishing a

telephone or Internet tracking system to allow requestors

to easily obtain information on the status of their

individual requests, including an estimated date on which

the agency will complete action on the request.

Sec. 8. Specific Citations in Exemptions. 5 U.S.C.

552(b)(3) states that records specifically exempted from

disclosure by statute are exempt from FOIA. This section of

the bill provides that Congress may not create new statutory

exemptions under this provision of FOIA unless it does so

explicitly. Accordingly, for any new statutory exemption to

have effect, the statute must cite directly to 5 U.S.C.

552(b)(3), thereby conveying congressional intent to create a

new (b)(3) exemption.

Sec. 9. Reporting Requirements. This section adds to

current reporting requirements by mandating disclosure of

data on the 10 oldest active requests pending at each agency,

including the amount of time elapsed since each request was

originally filed. This section further requires agencies to

calculate and report on the average response times and range

of response times of FOIA requests. (Current requirements

mandate reporting on the median response time.) Finally, this

section requires reports on the number of fee status requests

that are granted and denied and the average number of days

for adjudicating fee status determinations by individual

agencies.

Sec. 10. Openness of Agency Records Maintained by a Private

Entity. This section clarifies that agency records kept by

private contractors licensed by the government to undertake

recordkeeping functions remain subject to FOIA just as if

those records were maintained by the relevant government

agency.

Sec. 11. Office of Government Services. This section

establishes an Office of Government Information Services

within the Administrative Conference of the U.S. Within that

office will be appointed a FOIA ombudsman to review agency

policies and procedures, audit agency performance, recommend

policy changes, and mediate disputes between FOIA requestors

and agencies. The establishment of an ombudsman will not

impact the ability of requestors to litigate FOIA claims, but

rather will serve to alleviate the need for litigation

whenever possible.

Sec. 12. Accessibility of Critical Infrastructure

Information. This section requires reports on the

implementation of the Critical Infrastructure Information Act

of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 133. Reports shall be issued from the

Comptroller General to the Congress on the number of private

sector, state, and local agency submissions of CII data to

the Department of Homeland Security and the number of

requests for access to records. The Comptroller General will

also be required to report on whether the nondisclosure of

CII material has led to increased protection of critical

infrastructure.

Sec. 13. Report on Personnel Policies Related to FOIA. This

section requires the Office of Personnel Management to

examine how FOIA can be better implemented at the agency

level, including an assessment of whether FOIA performance

should be considered as a factor in personnel performance

reviews, whether a job classification series specific to FOIA

and the Privacy Act should be considered, and whether FOIA

awareness training should be provided to federal employees.

Exhibit 2

February 15, 2005.

Hon. John Cornyn,

Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the

Constitution, Civil Rights & Property Rights, Washington

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

Mr. President, this week the people of my State of Alaska pause to recognize two giant figures in the fight for equal rights and justice under the law, the late Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. On February 16, 2005, the State of Alaska once again observed Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. Activities to celebrate the legacy of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich are taking place in schools and cultural centers throughout Alaska this week. This coming Saturday, the Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage will conduct a day-long celebration of the Peratrovich legacy.

Roy and Elizabeth are to the Native peoples of Alaska what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks are to African Americans. Everybody knows about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, but hardly anyone outside the State of Alaska knows about Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. Today, I rise to once again share the Peratrovich legacy with the Senate.

Elizabeth was born in 1911, about 17 years before Dr. King. She was born in Petersburg, AK. After college she married Roy Peratrovich, a Tlingit from Klawock, AK, and the couple had three children. Roy and Elizabeth moved to Juneau. They were excited about buying a new home. But they could not buy the house that they wanted because they were Native. They could not enter the stores or restaurants they wanted. Outside some of these stores and restaurants there were signs that read ``No Natives Allowed.'' History has also recorded a sign that read ``No Dogs or Indians Allowed.''

On December 30, 1941, following the invasion of Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth and Roy wrote to Alaska's Territorial Governor:

In the present emergency our Native boys are being called

upon to defend our beloved country. There are no distinctions

being made there. Yet when we patronized good business

establishments we are told in most cases that Natives are not

allowed.

The proprietor of one business, an inn, does not seem to

realize that our Native boys are just as willing to lay down

their lives to protect the freedom he enjoys. Instead he

shows his appreciation by having a `No Natives Allowed' sign

on his door.

In that letter Elizabeth and Roy noted:

We were shocked when the Jews were discriminated against in

Germany. Stories were told of public places having signs,

``No Jews Allowed.'' All freedom loving people were horrified

at what was being practiced in Germany, yet it is being

practiced in our own country.

In 1943, the Alaska Legislature, at the behest of Roy and Elizabeth considered an antidiscrimination law. It was defeated. But Roy and Elizabeth were not defeated. Two years later, in 1945, the antidiscrimination measure was back before the Alaska Terrritorial Legislature. It passed the lower house, but met with stiff opposition in the Territorial Senate.

One by one Senators took to the floor to debate the closely contested legislation. One Senator argued that ``the races should be kept further apart.'' This Senator went on to rhetorically question, ``Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind us?''

Elizabeth Peratrovich was observing the debate from the gallery. As a citizen, she asked to be heard and in accordance with the custom of the day was recognized to express her views.

In a quiet, dignified and steady voice this ``fighter with velvet gloves'' responded, ``I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with 5,000 years of recorded history behind them of our Bill of Rights.''

She was asked by a Senator if she thought the proposed bill would eliminate discrimination, Elizabeth Peratrovich queried in rebuttal, ``Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent these crimes? No law will eliminate crimes but at least you as legislators can assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination.''

When she finished, there was a wild burst of applause from the gallery and the Senate floor alike. The territorial Senate passed the bill by a vote of 11 to 5. On February 16, 1945, Alaska had an antidiscrimination law that provided that all citizens of the territory of Alaska are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations. Following passage of the anti-discrimination law, Roy and Elizabeth could be seen dancing at the Baranof Hotel, one of Juneau's finest. They danced among people they didn't know. They danced in a place where the day before they were not welcome.

There is an important lesson to be learned from the battles of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. Even in defeat, they knew that change would come from their participation in our political system. They were not discouraged by their defeat in 1943. They came back fighting and enjoyed the fruits of their victory 2 years later.

Twenty-four years before Alaska's statehood and 18 years before Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his dream for racial equity under the law, Alaska had a law protecting civil rights. Elizabeth would not live to see the United States adopt the same law she brought to Alaska in 1945. She passed away in 1958 at the age of 47, 6 years before civil rights legislation would pass nationally.

In addition to the annual observance of Elizabeth Peratrovich Day, the State of Alaska has acknowledged Elizabeth Peratrovich's contribution to history by designating one of the public galleries in the Alaska House of Representatives as the Elizabeth Peratrovich Gallery.

But what about Roy? Why has his role not been recognized? Roy Peratrovich passed away in 1989 at age 81. He died 9 days before the first Elizabeth Peratrovich Day was observed in the State of Alaska. Perhaps it was because Roy was still alive at the time this honor was bestowed, it is Elizabeth who has gotten all the credit for passage of the antidiscrimination

Members of the Peratrovich family tell me that this is not entirely unjustified because without Elizabeth's stirring speech the antidiscrimination law would not have passed. But they also point out, as does the historical record, that Elizabeth and Roy were a focused and effective team. History should recognize that the antidiscrimination law was enacted due to the joint efforts of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich. I rise today to do my part toward that end.

Joined by my colleagues, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and my distinguished colleague from the State of Washington, Ms. Cantwell, I am pleased to once again offer legislation to recognize the contributions of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich with a Congressional Gold Medal. I invite all of my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Congressional Gold

Medals have been awarded to a number of African Americans who have made contributions to the cause of civil rights, among them, Rosa Parks, Roy Wilkins, Dorothy Height, the nine brave individuals who desegregated the schools of Little Rock, Arkansas, and others involved in the effort to desegregate public education.

With the opening of the very popular National Museum of the American Indian last year our Nation is focusing on the many contributions of our first people and the challenges they have faced throughout our Nation's history. It is time that we also acknowledge the work of American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians in the struggle for civil rights and social justice. Honoring Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich's substantial contribution with a Congressional Gold Medal is a fine start.

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

Mr. President, more than 30 years have passed since Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which settled the aboriginal land claims of the first inhabitants of Alaska by making each eligible Alaska Native a shareholder in 1 of 13 regional corporations and many of these people shareholders in a village corporation as well. Each of the corporations was capitalized with land and money.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was a bold experiment, and its implementation was not without controversy. As originally enacted, the law provided that a shareholder of an Alaska Native Corporation could sell his or her stock on or after December 18, 1991, without any intervening action by the corporation.

This provision could have resulted in massive sales of stock by Native shareholders in the ensuing years and caused the wholesale transfer of Native assets to non-Native interests. Thanks to the leadership of the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, this catastrophe was averted through a series of amendments to the Act, signed into law in 1987, which forbade the sale of corporate stock without the consent of the corporation's shareholders.

This landmark legislation brought an end to the speculation about whether the Native corporations would survive long enough to fulfill the goal that Congress set for them, which was to be the springboard for the economic, social and political empowerment of Alaska's Native people, or alternatively execute the temporary transfer of land and capital which would ultimately end up in non-Native hands. I am proud, that none of the Native corporations have opened their stock to purchase by outsiders. In fact, I see nothing on the horizon to suggest that any of the corporations will take up this question in the foreseeable future.

If history is any guide, the Alaska Native Corporations are destined to remain in Native hands for a long time to come. This is good news for the Native people of Alaska and it is good news for my State as a whole.

I rise today to offer legislation, requested by the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Association of ANCSA Presidents and CEOs, which is intended to address a piece of unfinished business left by the 1987 amendments to the act.

Under the act, as originally passed, stock in an Alaska Native corporation was generally only available to an Alaska Native born on or before December 18, 1971 and those who might inherit stock from a deceased shareholder. The original legislation gave little thought to offering those born after December 18, 1971 a role in the corporation. In effect, the original legislation disenfranchised an entire generation born after the cutoff date from having a stake in the Native corporations. It disenfranchised an entire generation of young people from playing a role in the governance of the Native corporations and from having an ownership interest in their Native lands.

The 1987 amendments allowed the shareholders of a Native corporation to remedy this unintended consequence by allowing new stock to be issued to the descendants of a corporation's original shareholders provided that a majority of the outstanding shares agreed. Under the 1987 amendments, such stock could only be issued to those descendants who had one quarter or more Alaska Native blood. A subsequent technical amendment allowed the stock to be issued to descendants without regard to their blood quantum, at the option of each corporation's shareholders.

Time has demonstrated that the remedy for incorporating the generation

born after December 18, 1971 is an imperfect one. This is sad because one of the most important responsibilities faced by the Board of Directors of any corporation is to plan for its own succession and the succession of the corporation's leadership.

Since 1987, less than a handful of the 13 regional Native corporations have put the question of enrolling the next generation to their shareholders. However, all of the corporations that have considered the question have voted in the affirmative.

Why then have more corporations not taken the question to a vote? The answer seems to lie in the voting requirements imposed by the 1987 amendments, which essentially requires an affirmative vote of a supermajority of the shares represented in person or by proxy at a shareholder meeting. In order for a corporation to obtain an affirmative vote of a majority of its outstanding shares, something of the order of 80 percent of the corporation's stockholders must be represented at the meeting in person or by proxy. Under present law, any shareholder who does not attend the meeting or submit a proxy is deemed to have voted in the negative.

When Doyon, Limited, the regional Native corporation for Interior Alaska, took the question of enrolling the generation of descendants born between 1971 and 1992 to its shareholders at its 1992 annual meeting, some 79.2 percent of the shareholders expressed an opinion in person or proxy. Still, the decision to approve the enrollment passed by the narrowest of margins. This was a record quorum for the corporation, which had 9,061 original shareholders, and the record has yet to be broken.

Sealaska Corporation, the regional Native corporation for Southeast Alaska, had more original shareholders than any other regional Native corporation. Sealaska had 15,700 original shareholders, each owning 100 shares of stock. Sealaska has never enjoyed a quorum of 79.2 percent and is pessimistic that such a quorum could ever be mustered. Accordingly, Sealaska, which has been pondering the question of enrolling the next generation for many years, has been deterred from putting the question to a stockholder vote by the supermajority voting requirement in the 1987 amendment.

Whether Sealaska enrolls the generation born after 1971 is not up to me. It is up to the shareholders of Sealaska. But I think the Congress owes it to the next generation of Alaska Natives to offer a level playing field when it comes to participation in their Native corporations.

In addressing the Alaska Native community, I often make reference to a marvelous book by Alexandra J. McClanahan entitled ``Growing Up Native in Alaska.'' In this book, A.J. profiled 27 Alaska Natives born between 1957 and 1976 and allowed them in their own words to speak about what it means to be an Alaska Native. Some of the people profiled in the book received stock under the 1971 act while others missed the deadline. I will quote from this book for the Record.

One of these 27 Alaska Natives is Jaeleen Kookesh-Araujo, a Tlingit Indian, who grew up in the village of Angoon, AK. Jaeleen is a bright young attorney who works at one of Washington's most respected law firms. She is precisely the type of person who is well positioned to lead her regional corporation, Sealaska, into the future. And she is one of many Alaska Natives who was born after December 18, 1971. Jaeleen has an opportunity to participate in Sealaska's governance because her parents gave her some of their stock as a gift, but she remains concerned that others of her generation have been left out.

This is what Jaeleen said about why it is important to make stock available to the descendants.

I am a shareholder thanks to my parents gifting me shares,

but there are a lot of young people who are never going to be

shareholders. If you have one parent with several children,

they can try to allocate shares to all of them, but some may

be left out. Or, maybe you have a Native child who has been

adopted who doesn't have parents with shares--whatever. There

are going to be a lot of young Native people left out of this

corporate structure, and it's really sad. Eventually, there

may be a problem because you're going to have a lot of

young, talented Alaska Native people going out to get

educated. They're going to have a lot of expertise and

education in ways that might benefit the corporation, and

yet you have to wonder if they're really going to want to

be involved in these Native corporations that they don't

even belong to. I do want to be involved in the Native

corporations because this is my ancestors' land that

they're managing and developing and protecting . . .

I am not going to tell you that each of the 27 young people that A.J. profiled feels the same way. Another young Native profiled in A.J.'s book supported the status quo in spite of the fact that he was born 2 days after the cutoff.

I really don't think it's necessary to adjust for the

future generations. The idea of gifting and willing stock is

a really efficient method, and I think we ought to stick with

that, rather than having to expand and degrade the stock,

allowing the children to be shareholders. It's unfair that we

as children born after December 18th are not shareholders,

but in order to keep the integrity of the stock, I think it's

essential that we continue on with the method of granting,

gifting and willing stock.

The final quote is from a Doyon shareholder who was involved in that company's decision to make new stock available to those born between 1971 and 1992.

When I first started I thought, ``I don't want my dividend

to get smaller.'' I was an intern in Doyon's Shareholder

Relations, so I was involved in the committee that was

studying the issue to enroll children born after 1971. When

it was time to vote, I thought: ``Darned if I'm letting my

nieces and nephews not be involved.'' I was a total

turnaround. There was no way I was going to leave them out.

There was no difference between me and them. They were just

born later.

As you can see, there may not be unanimity on the question of whether new stock should be made available to the descendants. But I think we all can agree that the debate is a healthy one and the debate will not take place in earnest unless Congress relaxes the supermajority standard imposed by the 1987 amendments.

The legislation I am introducing today would allow the shareholders of a Native corporation to authorize new stock for those born after December 18, 1971 by a majority vote of the shares present and voting at a duly constituted meeting of the shareholders. Shareholders who want to make the stock available will have the opportunity to vote yes. Those who do not will have the opportunity to vote no. Those who choose not to participate, place the fate of the question in the hands of those who choose to participate. The majority prevails.

The 1987 amendments authorized Native corporations to make additional shares available to Native elders and to enroll those who were eligible to receive stock as original shareholders but who failed to enroll. The number of missed enrollees is expected to be small. My legislation would change the voting standard for these two categories to a majority of the shares present and voting as well.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Coleman again this year to re-introduce the Ryan Haight Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation will protect the safety of Americans who choose to purchase their prescription drugs legally over the Internet.

This legislation is necessary because of a growing problem of illegal prescription drug diversion and abuse of prescription drugs. Coupled with the ease of access to the Internet, it has led to an environment where illegitimate pharmacy websites can bypass traditional regulations and established safeguards for the sale of prescription drugs. Internet websites that allow consumers to obtain prescriptions drugs without the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship pose an immediate threat to public health and safety.

To address this problem, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act makes several critical steps, to ensure safety and to assist regulatory authorities in shutting down ``rogue'' Internet pharmacies.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits the dispensing or sale of a prescription drug based solely on communications via the Internet such as the completion of an online medical questionnaire.

Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

Under this bill, for a domestic Web site to sell prescription drugs legally, the web site would have to display identifying information such as the names, addresses, and medical licensing information for pharmacists and physicians associated with the Web site.

In addition, if a person wants to use the Internet to purchase their prescription drugs he or she will not be prohibited from doing so under this bill but, in order to do so, must already have a prescription for the drug that is valid in the United States prior to making the Internet purchase.

Reliance on the Internet for public health purposes and the expansion of telemedicine, particularly in rural areas, make it essential that there be at the very least a minimum standard for what qualifies as an acceptable medical relationship between patients and their physicians.

According to the American Medical Association, a health care practitioner who offers a prescription for a patient he or she has never seen before, based solely on an online questionnaire, generally does not meet the appropriate medical standard of care.

Let me illustrate the situation facing our country today. If a physician's office prescribed and dispensed prescription drugs the same way Internet pharmacies currently can do, it would look something like this: a physician opens a physical office, asks a patient to fill out a medical history questionnaire in the lobby and give his or her credit card information to the office manager. There is no nurse, and therefore no one to take the patients' height, weight, blood pressure, verify his or her medical history, and so forth and no one to answer the patient's questions regarding their health.

The questionnaire is then slipped through a hole in the window; the office manager takes it to the physician, or person acting as the physician, who then writes the prescription and hands it to the pharmacist, or person acting as the pharmacist, in the next room. Once the patient signs his credit card, he is on his way out the door, drugs in hand.

No examination is performed, no questions asked, and no verification or clarification of the answers provided on the medical history questionnaire.

This illustration is not an exaggeration. It occurs everyday all across the United States. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates that there are around 500 identifiable rogue pharmacy Web sites operating on the Internet.

According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, 31 States and the District of Columbia either have laws or medical board initiatives addressing Internet medical practice.

Many States have already enacted laws defining acceptable practices for qualifying medical relationships between doctors and patients and this bill would not affect any existing State laws.

For example, California law was changed in 2000 to say: ``no person or entity may prescribe, dispense, or furnish, or cause to be prescribed, dispensed, or furnished dangerous drugs or dangerous devices [defined as any drug or device unsafe for self-use] on the Internet for delivery to any person in this state, without a good faith prior examination and medical indication . . .''

I believe California's law is a perfect example of why this legislation is needed. The law only applies to persons living in California. As we all know, however, the Internet is not bound by State or even country borders.

This legislation makes a critical step forward by providing additional authority for State Attorneys General to file an injunction in Federal court to shut down an Internet site operating in another State that violates the provisions in the bill.

Under current law, in order to close down an Internet website selling prescription drugs prosecutors must take enforcement actions in every State where the Internet pharmacy operates, requiring a tremendous amount of resources in an environment where the location of the website is difficult, if not impossible, to determine or keep track of.

This bill will allow a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of the law in every jurisdiction where the pharmacy is operating.

While this legislation pertains to domestic Internet pharmacies, the practice of international pharmacies selling low-cost drugs to U.S. consumers who have valid prescriptions from their doctors deserves to be discussed and debated on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Senate will act this year on prescription drug importation legislation.

In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, California in whose memory this bill is named.

Ryan was an 18-year old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001.

His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-State pharmacy.

It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay.

Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers.

Ryan's story and others like it force us to ask why anyone in the U.S. would be able to access such highly addictive and dangerous drugs over the Internet with such ease?

Why was there no physician or pharmacist on the other end of this teenager's computer verifying his age, his medical history and that there was a valid prescription?

That is why I support this legislation. It makes sensible requirements of Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs.

With simple disclosure requirements for Internet sites such as names, addresses and medical or pharmacy licensing information, patients will be better off and State medica1 and pharmacy boards can ensure that pharmacists and doctors are properly licensed.

Lastly, this bill will give State attorneys general the authority they need to shut down rogue Internet pharmacies operating in other states.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a resolution with Senators Snowe, McCain, Chafee, Murray, Jeffords, Durbin, Lieberman, Leahy, Lautenberg, Boxer, Cantwell, Akaka and Reed that urges the Administration to participate in international negotiations and actively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol goes into effect today. More than 140 nations, including all 25 members of the European Union, Russia and China, have ratified the agreement to reduce man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

The United States, which accounts for about one-fourth of the greenhouse gases believed responsible for global warming, has refused to ratify the treaty.

Thirty-five of the world's thirty-eight industrialized countries-- except for the United States, Australia, and Monaco--have ratified this important treaty.

This means that industrialized nations are bound to cut their combined greenhouse gases by 5 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

The United States is missing an important opportunity to protect our planet's environment by not ratifying the Protocol.

I believe this is a huge mistake.

There is emerging consensus that global warming is real.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``Since the 1900s global average temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration have increased dramatically, particularly compared to their levels in the 900 preceding years.''

Scientists now agree on three main Facts about global warming.

Fact 1: The Earth is warming.

Fact 2: The primary cause of this warming is man-made activities, especially fossil fuel consumption.

Fact 3: If we don't act now to reduce emissions, the problem will only get worse.

We have already begun to see the impacts of climate change: four hurricanes of significant force pounded the state of Florida in a six week period last fall. The storms formed over an area of the ocean where surface temperatures have increased an average of 17 degrees over the past decade.

Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea.

Glaciers are beginning to disappear in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the Park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.

In California, water supplies are threatened by smaller snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada. Record snowfalls this winter have provided hope for this summer but the region still could face drought or floods unless temperatures stay cold enough to maintain the snowpack and average snowfall continues for the rest of the precipitation season.

If we take strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there will be 27 percent snowpack remaining in the Sierras at the end of the century.

However, if we do nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, there will only be 11 percent snowpack left in the Sierras at the end of the century.

The San Diego based Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a preeminent center for marine science research, will release a study later this week showing that global warming will likely have serious ramifications in the very near future, including: a water crisis in the western United States in the next 20 years due to smaller snowpacks.

The disappearance of the glaciers in the Andes in Peru in as little as 10 years, leaving the population without an adequate water supply during the summer.

The melting of two-thirds of the glaciers in western China by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants.

Further, the UN Comprehensive Assessment of Freshwater Resources of the World estimates that by 2025, around 5 billion people, out of a total

world population of 8 billion, will not have access to adequate water supplies.

And concern about the effects of climate change is mounting around the world.

Scientists fear that an ``ecological catastrophe'' is developing in Tibet with the melting of the region's glaciers as a result of global warming.

Glaciers in West Antarctica are thinning twice as fast as they did in the 1990s

The mean air temperature has risen 4-5 degrees in Alaska in the past three decades causing glaciers to melt and the coastline to recede.

Peru's Quelccaya ice cap, the largest in the tropics, could be gone by 2100 if it continues to melt at its current rate--contracting more than 600 feet a year in some places.

In addition, according to National Geographic, ``the famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80 percent since 1912. Glaciers in the Garhwal Himalaya in India are retreating so fast that researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035. Arctic sea ice has thinned significantly over the past half century, and its extent has declined by about 10 percent in the past 30 years. Greenland's ice sheet is shrinking.''

The Pew Center for Climate Change reports strong evidence of global warming in the United States. The findings included: the red fox has shifted its habitat northward, where it is encroaching on the Arctic fox's range.

Southern, warm-water fish have begun to infiltrate waters off Monterey, California, which were previously dominated by colder-water species.

The Alaskan tundra, which has for thousands of years been a depository for carbon dioxide, has begun to release more of the gas into the air than it removes because warmer winters are causing stored plant matter to decompose.

There have been documented trends in which the natural timing of animal or insect life cycles changed and the plants on which they depended did not. Many Southern species of butterflies have disappeared entirely over the past century as their range contracted.

According to the International Climate Change Taskforce, of which Senator Snowe is a Co-Chair, if the earth's average temperature increases by more than 2 degres Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the world could face substantial agricultural losses, countless people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts such as malaria.

Even more critically, if the temperature rises more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, we could be at risk for catastrophic/weather events. For instance, we would risk losing the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which could raise sea levels, shut down the Gulf Stream, and destroy the world's forests.

Climate change is real. Its impacts are already being felt. If emissions keep growing at projected levels, greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will reach levels unknown since the time of the dinosaurs during the lifetimes of children born today.

That is why my colleagues and I have introduced this resolution that: Urges the Administration to engage in international discussions on post-Kyoto greenhouse gas reductions.

Calls upon the Administration to take action NOW to reduce emissions domestically.

Encourages the United States to keep global average temperatures from increasing more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over pre-industrial levels.

As the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it is the responsibility of the United States to lead by example. By not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, we have sent a harsh message to the world that the largest emitter and contributor to global warming refuses to participate in a worldwide program aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

But fortunately, even though the federal government has refused to acknowledge global warming, many States have recognized that in spite of the federal government's inaction, action must be taken.

Nearly 40 States have developed their own climate plans.

A emission trading system is emerging in the Northeast that will require large power plants from Maine to Delaware to reduce their carbon emissions.

Eighteen States and Washington, DC have enacted renewable portfolio standards. They include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin.

California has enacted legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle tailpipes--it is expected that the Northeastern States and Canada will also follow California's lead.

Yet without concerted Federal action, the United States will not be able to achieve real, significant greenhouse gas reductions.

As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, we must act now to reduce the impacts of climate change and save the environment for future generations.

The Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. Though the Protocol ends, the United States needs to lead and move to negotiate a post-Kyoto framework. There are many things we can do. For example, we can: use our forests and our farmland as a depository for carbon to prevent it from being released into the atmosphere; develop new technologies such as clean coal, renewable energy, and hydrogen vehicles; make better use of existing technologies such as hybrid vehicles and energy efficient buildings, appliances, and power generation; and use market-based programs, such as cap and trade, to reduce emissions with the least harm to economy.

Being a responsible steward of the climate is more than just taking steps to pollute less. It also requires participating in international negotiations on the policies the world will need to achieve significant, long-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the second in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Yesterday, I submitted S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters.

The bill that I am introducing today, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing effort to find ways to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs abroad.

The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. This is an important law but, regrettably, it contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign- made goods.

My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing act by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the Act and buy foreign goods. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice.

I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. Regrettably, nearly 80,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my state since 2000. And the country has lost more than two-and-one-half million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, including more than 25,000 jobs last month alone. This hemorrhaging of jobs shows no signs of stopping. Congress should do more to support domestic manufacturers and their employees. One way to do this is to ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to buy American-made goods.

There are five primary waivers to the Buy American Act, and my bill addresses four of them The first of these waivers allows an agency head to buy foreign goods if complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest,'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives too much discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would modify this waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for proposals, or RFP, has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a procurement up for bid. To do otherwise pulls the rug out from under companies that are spending valuable time and resources to prepare a bid for a Federal contract.

The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowest-priced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would modify this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and of opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there are occasions when the Federal Government needs to procure items quickly for use outside the United States, such as in a time of war. However, there may be items that are bought on a regular basis and used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, that could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require Federal agencies to compare the difference in cost for obtaining articles that are used on regular basis outside the U.S., or that are not needed immediately, between an overseas versus a domestic source--including the cost of shipping--before awarding the contract to the company that will do the work overseas.

The Buy American Act's domestic source requirements may also be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such a waiver, determine whether domestic production can be initiated to meet the procurement needs and whether a comparable article, material, or supply is available domestically.

My bill would also strengthen the Buy American Act in four other ways. It would, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to the United States Congress. The current definition of a Federal agency in the Act specifically exempts the Senate, the House, and Architect of the Capitol, and activities under the direction of the Architect. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act--a requirement that we have imposed on executive agencies.

Secondly, my bill would increase the minimum American content standard qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American- made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a minimum of 75 percent.

In addition, my bill would make permanent the expanded reporting requirement that I authored which was first enacted as part of the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and was extended as part of the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending bill. Prior to the enactment of these provisions, only the Department of Defense was required to report to Congress on its use of Buy American waivers and purchases of foreign goods. It is virtually impossible to get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign- and domestic-made goods and to ensure that there is disclosure and accountability in the waiver process.

The annual report to be submitted by agency heads will be required to include the following information: the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. In addition, my bill also requires that the heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly available on the Internet.

My bill also seeks to prevent dual-use technologies from falling into the hands of terrorists or countries of concern by prohibiting the awarding of overseas contracts or sub-contracts that would require the transfer of information relating to any item that is classified as a dual-use item on the Commerce Control List unless approval for such a contract has been obtained through the Export Administration Act process. It only makes sense that we would not award contracts that require the transfer of sensitive technology without following our own export licensing process. It is possible that this technology could later be used by some countries to make their own products to sell to countries that cannot obtain such goods from the United States. This loophole in our export control laws should be closed.

Finally, my bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would require to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as for establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all federal agencies.

I am pleased that my legislation is supported by a broad array of business and labor groups. The groups are committed to ensuring that we have a strong domestic manufacturing base that provides good-paying, stable jobs for American workers, and they include Save American Manufacturing, the national and Wisconsin AFL-CIO, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, and the United Auto Workers.

In addition to strengthening the Buy American Act, Congress should support trade agreements that do not undermine it. As I have repeatedly stated on this floor, Congress and Administrations of both parties have a dismal record of promoting trade agreements that send American jobs overseas. And many of those same flawed trade agreements have repeatedly weakened the Buy American Act and other domestic preference laws.

Last year, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Lieberman, and I asked the GAO to study the effect of trade agreements on domestic source requirements such as those contained in the Buy American Act. That study found that the United States government is required to give

favorable treatment to certain goods from a total of 45 countries as a result of trade agreements and reciprocal defense procurement agreements. The report notes that the United States is a party to seven trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement, that prevents the U.S. from applying domestic preference laws fully. The report also identifies 21 Department of Defense (DoD) Memoranda of Understanding that allow DoD to procure goods and services from foreign countries.

The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws.

By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem, I believe that one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act.

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