Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pascua Yaqui Mineral Rights Act of 2005 to provide for acquisition of subsurface mineral interests in land owned by the Pascua Yaqui tribe and land held in trust for the Tribe.

The Pascua Yaqui tribe has purchased in fee four parcels of land, totaling approximately 436 acres, from the State of Arizona. These parcels are adjacent to the Tribe's reservation near Tucson, AZ. The Tribe subsequently applied to have these lands taken into trust pursuant to the 25 CFR Part 151 process. The Bureau of Indian Affairs approved the trust application. However, the State of Arizona objected because it still owns the subsurface mineral rights when it conveys its Trust lands. Based on the State of Arizona's objection, the Tribe's trust application was stayed pending resolution of the mineral rights title issue. Arizona law prevents the State from selling these mineral interests and I understand that the only way they can be acquired is through an act of condemnation brought by the United States pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3113. The State of Arizona has conditionally consented to a condemnation action.

It has since been discovered that an additional 140 acres of the reservation was also former State of Arizona trust land that was purchased in fee by the Tribe and taken into trust without obtaining the mineral estate. The State of Arizona has also conditionally consented to a condemnation action with regard to these additional 140 acres.

In additional to the mineral interests condemnation, this legislation covers another subject. Under 360 acres of the reservation, the United States owns the mineral interests for itself, rather than in trust for the tribe. Although that acreage was originally purchased in fee, it was previously patented by the U.S. and the U.S. retained the mineral interests to that property for its own benefit, currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This legislation would authorize the Bureau of Land Management to transfer those mineral interests to the U.S., to be held in trust for the Pascua Yaqui tribe.

The result of the legislation I introduce today would be to allow the United States to obtain and/or consolidate ownership of the mineral interest only, in its name, in trust for the Pascua Yaqui tribe. These mineral interests are under the surface of land already either owned by the Pascua Yaqui tribe, or held in trust for the Tribe by the United States.

Finally, under the terms of its current gaming compact with the State of Arizona, the Tribe has already constructed the maximum number of casinos it can operate on its reservation at this time. This bill will not authorize additional reservation casinos.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join in sponsoring the Community Broadband Act of 2005. In the simplest of terms, this bill would ensure that any town, city, or county that wishes to offer high- speed Internet services to its citizens can do so. The bill also would ensure fairness by requiring municipalities that offer high-speed Internet services do so in compliance with all Federal and State telecommunications laws and in a nondiscriminatory manner.

This bill is needed if we are to meet President Bush's call for ``universal, affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007.'' When President Bush announced this nationwide goal in 2004, the country was ranked 10th in the world for high-speed Internet penetration. Today, the country is ranked 16th. This is unacceptable for a country that should lead the world in technical innovation, economic development, and international competitiveness.

Many of the countries outpacing the United States in the deployment of high-speed Internet services, including Canada, Japan, and South Korea, have successfully combined municipal systems with privately deployed networks to wire their countries. As a country, we cannot afford to cut off any successful strategy if we want to remain internationally competitive.

I recognize that our Nation has a long and successful history of private investment in critical communications infrastructure. That history must be respected, protected, and continued. However, when private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or other obstacles, it is appropriate and even commendable, for the people acting through their local governments to improve their lives by investing in their own future. In many rural towns, the local government's high-speed Internet offering may be its citizens only option to access the World Wide Web.

Despite this situation, a few incumbent providers of traditional telecommunications services have attempted to stop local government deployment of community high speed Internet services. The bill would do nothing to limit their ability to compete. In fact, the bill would provide them an incentive to enter more rural areas and deploy services in partnership with local governments. This partnership will not only reduce the costs to private firms, but also ensure wider deployment of rural services. Additionally, the bill would aid private providers by prohibiting a municipality when acting as both ``regulator'' and ``competitor'' from discriminating against competitors in favor of itself.

Several newspapers have endorsed the concept of allowing municipalities to choose whether to offer high speed Internet services. USA Today rightfully questioned in an editorial, ``Why shouldn't citizens be able to use their own resources to help themselves?'' The Washington Post editorialized that the offering of high speed Internet services by localities is, ``. . . the sort of municipal experiment we hope will spread.'' The San Jose Mercury News stated that a ban on localities ability to offer such services is ``bad for consumers, bad for technology and bad for America's hopes of catching up to other countries in broadband deployment.'' Finally, the Tampa Tribune lectured Federal and State legislators, ``don't prohibit local elected officials from providing a service their communities need.''

My home State of Arizona boasts the largest approved municipal broadband system in the United States, for example. The city of Tempe's wireless system will serve all of the city's 40 square miles and a population of 159,000, including the campus of Arizona State University. Citizens will have Internet access from anywhere at any time, and police, fire, water and traffic services personnel will use the system to enhance their efficiency.

In addition to Tempe, several Native American tribal governments offer high-speed Internet access services to their citizens. This bill would ensure that such offerings could continue to assist Indian country and their ability to connect to the Internet.

Our country faces some real challenges. We need to find ways to use technology to help our citizens better compete. We need to help our businesses capitalize on their ingenuity so that they can become more internationally competitive. That is why we need to do all we can to eliminate barriers to competition and create incentives for the delivery of high-speed Internet services for public suppliers of broadband services, private suppliers of broadband services, and public-private partnerships as well.

I hope my colleagues will join us in sponsoring the Community Broadband Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the National Indian Gaming Commission Accountability Act of 2005 to amend provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act regarding NIGC funding and accountability.

The Indian gaming industry has undergone tremendous growth since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. The regulatory responsibilities of the NIGC, the Federal agency responsible for oversight of the industry, has likewise grown. In recent years the NIGC's budgeting needs have consistently exceeded the $8 million statutory cap, necessitating short-term authorizations to exceed the cap to enable it to adequately enforce the Act.

Rather than merely raising the cap on funding, this legislation amends IGRA's equation for funding the NIGC by allowing the funding to adjust in direct proportion to the revenues of the Indian gaming industry, with funding expanding or contracting as the Indian gaming industry grows or recedes. Under that equation--which provides that fees cannot exceed .08 percent of gross gaming revenues--the NIGC's budget for fiscal 2007 would be capped at approximately $14.5 million.

As the agency's needs have grown, so has the scrutiny of the regulated community and affected parties. It is therefore appropriate that the agency's budgetary choices and program plans be subject to transparency. Therefore, this legislation increases not only the agency's funding, but also its accountability by directing that the NIGC be subject to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). As a result, the agency would be required to develop a Strategic Plan, and annual performance plans and performance reports, all of which will provide critical information to the regulated stakeholders.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this timely and balanced legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join in sponsoring the Community Broadband Act of 2005. In the simplest of terms, this bill would ensure that any town, city, or county that wishes to offer high- speed Internet services to its citizens can do so. The bill also would ensure fairness by requiring municipalities that offer high-speed Internet services do so in compliance with all Federal and State telecommunications laws and in a nondiscriminatory manner.

This bill is needed if we are to meet President Bush's call for ``universal, affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007.'' When President Bush announced this nationwide goal in 2004, the country was ranked 10th in the world for high-speed Internet penetration. Today, the country is ranked 16th. This is unacceptable for a country that should lead the world in technical innovation, economic development, and international competitiveness.

Many of the countries outpacing the United States in the deployment of high-speed Internet services, including Canada, Japan, and South Korea, have successfully combined municipal systems with privately deployed networks to wire their countries. As a country, we cannot afford to cut off any successful strategy if we want to remain internationally competitive.

I recognize that our Nation has a long and successful history of private investment in critical communications infrastructure. That history must be respected, protected, and continued. However, when private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or other obstacles, it is appropriate and even commendable, for the people acting through their local governments to improve their lives by investing in their own future. In many rural towns, the local government's high-speed Internet offering may be its citizens only option to access the World Wide Web.

Despite this situation, a few incumbent providers of traditional telecommunications services have attempted to stop local government deployment of community high speed Internet services. The bill would do nothing to limit their ability to compete. In fact, the bill would provide them an incentive to enter more rural areas and deploy services in partnership with local governments. This partnership will not only reduce the costs to private firms, but also ensure wider deployment of rural services. Additionally, the bill would aid private providers by prohibiting a municipality when acting as both ``regulator'' and ``competitor'' from discriminating against competitors in favor of itself.

Several newspapers have endorsed the concept of allowing municipalities to choose whether to offer high speed Internet services. USA Today rightfully questioned in an editorial, ``Why shouldn't citizens be able to use their own resources to help themselves?'' The Washington Post editorialized that the offering of high speed Internet services by localities is, ``. . . the sort of municipal experiment we hope will spread.'' The San Jose Mercury News stated that a ban on localities ability to offer such services is ``bad for consumers, bad for technology and bad for America's hopes of catching up to other countries in broadband deployment.'' Finally, the Tampa Tribune lectured Federal and State legislators, ``don't prohibit local elected officials from providing a service their communities need.''

My home State of Arizona boasts the largest approved municipal broadband system in the United States, for example. The city of Tempe's wireless system will serve all of the city's 40 square miles and a population of 159,000, including the campus of Arizona State University. Citizens will have Internet access from anywhere at any time, and police, fire, water and traffic services personnel will use the system to enhance their efficiency.

In addition to Tempe, several Native American tribal governments offer high-speed Internet access services to their citizens. This bill would ensure that such offerings could continue to assist Indian country and their ability to connect to the Internet.

Our country faces some real challenges. We need to find ways to use technology to help our citizens better compete. We need to help our businesses capitalize on their ingenuity so that they can become more internationally competitive. That is why we need to do all we can to eliminate barriers to competition and create incentives for the delivery of high-speed Internet services for public suppliers of broadband services, private suppliers of broadband services, and public-private partnerships as well.

I hope my colleagues will join us in sponsoring the Community Broadband Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the National Indian Gaming Commission Accountability Act of 2005 to amend provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act regarding NIGC funding and accountability.

The Indian gaming industry has undergone tremendous growth since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. The regulatory responsibilities of the NIGC, the Federal agency responsible for oversight of the industry, has likewise grown. In recent years the NIGC's budgeting needs have consistently exceeded the $8 million statutory cap, necessitating short-term authorizations to exceed the cap to enable it to adequately enforce the Act.

Rather than merely raising the cap on funding, this legislation amends IGRA's equation for funding the NIGC by allowing the funding to adjust in direct proportion to the revenues of the Indian gaming industry, with funding expanding or contracting as the Indian gaming industry grows or recedes. Under that equation--which provides that fees cannot exceed .08 percent of gross gaming revenues--the NIGC's budget for fiscal 2007 would be capped at approximately $14.5 million.

As the agency's needs have grown, so has the scrutiny of the regulated community and affected parties. It is therefore appropriate that the agency's budgetary choices and program plans be subject to transparency. Therefore, this legislation increases not only the agency's funding, but also its accountability by directing that the NIGC be subject to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). As a result, the agency would be required to develop a Strategic Plan, and annual performance plans and performance reports, all of which will provide critical information to the regulated stakeholders.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this timely and balanced legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Can the Presiding Officer tell us the parliamentary situation, the time remaining?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for 1 minute?

Madam President, as the Senator from Florida points out, this chart shows the areas in Florida subject to inundation with a 100- centimeter sea level rise. This is what we see happening. The red is the area of his State that would be inundated. I thank the Senator from Florida for his commitment and his keen understanding of this dire emergency.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware off my time.

I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.

I yield 3 additional minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I hear a lot of conversation in private, and sometimes even on this floor, about being political and the reasons for action are political. The Senator from Idaho just did a great disservice to the Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair. I happen to know him. I have discussed this issue. To impugn his motives as the Senator just said--trying to get back with his buddies because of his support--that is character assassination. It is patently false and a great disservice to the leader of one of our great allies.

I would never question the motives of my opponents. To say the Prime Minister of England is motivated by political reasons for the strong and principled stand he has taken on climate change demanded my response, because I know he is an honorable man and not on this issue driven by political reasons.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am not going to continue this because I am afraid it may evoke further comments by the Senator from Idaho that may further diminish the reputation of a great European leader, who is obviously committed to addressing the issue of climate change. I will just say that in the joint academies' statement, it says in the global response to climate change, there will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate. However, there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.

The question is: Are we going to do something meaningful about it, or are we going to have a figleaf, such as we just passed with the Hagel amendment?

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

I yield.

Could I have the time situation?

And the other side?

Mr. President, I will be very brief because we worked it out that we would end up, which is appropriate because I am with the sponsor of the amendment.

I say to the Senator from New Mexico, who has talked about winners and losers, I will tell you who will lose, and that is the next generation of Americans because every reliable scientific body in the world knows climate change is real.

It is happening. And it may not bother the Senator from New Mexico and me at our age, but I will tell you, it bothers the heck out of young Americans, and it bothers the heck out of people who are experts on this issue.

If the Senator from New Mexico is worried about winners and losers, and he and I are winners, the next generation of people all over the world are losers because the National Academy of Sciences' statement is very clear:

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system

as complex as the world's climate, however there is now

strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.

I will tell you another loser, and that is the truth--that is the truth. The truth is, I say to the Senator from New Mexico, the European countries are meeting Kyoto emissions targets. They are meeting them. The truth is, Tony Blair has no political agenda. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, recognizes that global climate change is real. It is taking place, and we have to do something about it.

To say that by us not allocating winners and losers is a reason not to act on this compelling issue of the future of our globe, when the evidence is now compelling and overwhelming, with the exception of a group I will cite before I finish who are now funded by industry, then the Senator and those who have debunked this and continue to debunk it are going to have somebody to answer to in not too many years from now.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Only if it is out of the Senator's time.

I do not object to the Senator having an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. President, saying that it cannot be done, the Europeans are doing it with far less stringent measures to be taken than what we have.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

And the other side?

Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe for working together as we try to give both sides equal time. I yield myself 9 minutes. Senator Lieberman will take the remaining time.

Mr. President, the amendment incorporates the provisions of S. 342, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005, in its entirety, along with a new comprehensive title regarding the development and deployment of climate change reduction technologies. This new title, when combined with the ``cap and trade'' provisions of the previously introduced Climate Stewardship Act, will promote the commercialization of technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and increase the Nation's energy independence. And, it will help to keep America at the cutting edge of innovation where the jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy are to be found.

In fact, the ``cap and trade'' provisions and the new technology title are complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will allow us to usher in a new energy era, an era of responsible and innovative energy production and use that will yield enormous environmental, economic, and diplomatic benefits. The cap and trade portion provides the economic driver for existing and new technologies capable of supplying reliable and clean energy and making the best use of America's available energy resources. Our comprehensive proposal offers multiple benefits for our environment and our economy. We simply need the political will to match the public's concern about climate change, the economic interests of business and consumers, and American technological ingenuity and expertise.

Our comprehensive amendment sets forth a sound course toward a productive, secure, and clean energy future. Its provisions are based on the important efforts undertaken by academia, government, and business over the past decade to determine the best ways and means towards this energy future. Most of these studies have shared two common findings. First, significant reductions in greenhouse gases-- well beyond the modest goals of our amendment--are feasible over the next 10-20 years using technologies available today. Second, the most important technological deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the next two decades lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, and biofuels. For example, in the electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions, major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving the efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors designs for nuclear power, expanding use of renewable power sources, and significantly reducing electricity demand with the use of energy- saving technologies currently available to residential and commercial consumers. These clean technologies need to be promoted and that is what our legislation is about.

Before describing the details of this amendment, I think it is important to talk about what has occurred since the Senate vote on this issue in October 2003.

I could go on and on about the impacts of climate change and the associated science, yet there is still an ongoing debate in this town about whether or not climate change is real. If you still have doubts, I'd refer you to the powerful joint statement issued just two weeks ago by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and national academies from other G8 countries, along with those of Brazil, China, and India. Here are just a few quotes from the joint statement:

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system

as complex as the world's climate. However there is now

strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.

The scientific understanding of climate change is now

sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps

that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and

long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

We urge all nations . . . to take prompt action to reduce

the causes of climate change, adapt to its impact and ensure

that the issue is included in all relevant national and

international strategies.

These statements are powerful and compelling, and I would hope they would help to spur meaningful action in our country to address this grave problem.

The academies' statements are despite attempts by some public officials to ``muddy'' the science of global warming. In the June 8 New York Times, there was a very disturbing article on how many of the scientific reports on climate change have been ``edited'' by an official in the White House's Council on Environmental Quality. The article makes major implications for the future of not only climate change science, but also the future of science in general. The U.S. has always touted its superiority in science and technology. Reports such as these attack the credibility of the Nation's science and technology infrastructure at a time when many within government and industry say we are losing our competitive edge.

The article mentions that the changes to the documents can cause a clear shift in the meaning of the documents--a shift in science. This is outrageous and inexcusable behavior and the consequences of such actions could be severe. Historically, we have been able to exempt science as a political tool. But it now sounds like some have taken it upon themselves to turn climate change science into political science. That is unacceptable.

Perhaps this is why Prime Minister Blair has conceded that he has no chance persuading the President to change his position on climate change. I guess this is understandable now that we have learned that the two are operating under a different set of facts.

I also note a recent article in the Washington Post concerning the administration's efforts to weaken key aspects of a proposal for joint action on climate change by the G8 nations. We should all be able to agree that climate change policy should be based upon sound science. I hope that whatever policy comes from the G8 leaders it would reflect the urgency and the magnitude of the problem as indicated in the joint statement of the academies of science from the G8 countries, China, India and Brazil.

The fact is, the unaltered scientific evidence of human-induced climate change has grown even more abundant. Since February of this year, when I highlighted the results of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, even more startling evidence about the Arctic region has been revealed. In a recent Congressional briefing, Dr. Robert Corell, Chair of Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, presented data indicating that climate change in the Arctic is occurring more rapidly than previously thought. Annual average arctic temperatures have increased at twice the rate of global temperatures over the past several decades, with some regions increasing by five to ten times the global average.

The latest observations show Alaska's 2004 June-July-August mean temperature to be nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1971-2000 historic mean, and permafrost temperature increasing enough to cause it to start melting. Dr. Corell said the Greenland ice sheet is melting more rapidly than thought even 5 years ago, and that the climate models indicate that warming over Greenland is likely to be up to three times the global average, with warming projected to be in the range of 5 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which will most certainly lead to sea-level rise. These are remarkable new scientific findings.

It isn't surprising that just last month, indigenous leaders from Arctic regions called on the European Union to do more to fight global warming and to consider giving aid to their peoples, saying their way of life is at risk. Global warming is said to be causing the arrival in the far north of mosquitoes bearing infectious diseases. And in Scandinavia, more frequent rains in the winter are causing sheets of ice to develop on top of snow, causing animals to die of hunger because they cannot reach the grass underneath.

``We are not asking for sympathy,'' said Larisa Abrutina of

the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North.

``We are asking each country in the world to examine if it is

truly doing its part to slow climate change.''

The efforts taking place globally to address climate change have gained even greater prominence. For example,

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has made climate change one of his top two issues during his Presidency of the G8. Mr. Blair's commitment to addressing climate change should be commended. He has chosen to take action and not to hide behind the uncertainties that the science community will soon resolve. The Prime Minister made it clear in a January speech at World Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said, ``. . . if America wants the rest of the world to be a part of the agenda it has set, it must be a part of their agenda too.''

The top two issues that Prime Minister Blair has chosen to deal with are climate change and poverty in Africa. It is interesting to note that another article in the New York Times highlighted recently the connection between the two issues. The article describes how a 50 year long drying trend is likely to continue and appears to be tightly linked to substantial warming of the Indian Ocean. According to Dr. James Hurrell, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, ``. . . the Indian Ocean shows very clear and dramatic warming into the future, which means more and more drought for southern Africa. It is consistent with what we would expect from an increase in greenhouse gases.'' It appears that Mr. Blair's two priorities are quickly becoming one enormous challenge.

Mr. Blair enjoys strong support for efforts from industry. Recently, business leaders from 13 UK and international companies sent a letter to the Prime Minister stating there is a need for urgent action to be taken now to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and to offer to work in partnership with the government toward strengthening domestic and international progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, the heads of 23 global companies released a statement on June 9th, expressing strong support for action to mitigate climate change and the importance of market-based solutions. The statement was prepared by the G8 Climate Change Roundtable, which is comprised of companies headquartered in 10 nations throughout the world, including companies from a broad cross-section of industry sectors. The statement was in response to an invitation from the Prime Minister to provide business perspectives on climate change in advance of the G8 Summit that will take place in Gleneagles, Scotland, in early July.

The Roundtable's statement says ``We recognize that we have a responsibility to act on climate change.'' It further acknowledges there ``is a need for further, significant efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions'' . . . ``because of the cumulative nature and long residence time of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, action must be taken now.'' It also calls upon governments to establish ``clear, transparent, and consistent price signals'' through the creation of a long-term policy framework that includes all major emitters of greenhouse gases. The statement highlights the need for technology incentive programs to accelerate commercialization of low carbon technologies. Finally, the statement calls for a ``new partnership'' between the G8 countries and China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico to facilitate private investment in low carbon infrastructure.

In addition to the international industries support, I think it is very important to mention that there are now a number of U.S. industry leaders that have begun voicing their concerns for the need to take action, including GE, Duke, Excelon, Shell, and JP Morgan Chase. We welcome these and other leaders' participation and insight in this debate of worldwide consequence.

In the September 2004 issue, The National Geographic devotes 74 pages laying out in great detail the necessity of tackling our planet's problem of global warming. In an introductory piece, Editor-in-Chief Bill Allen described just how important he thinks this particular series of articles is:

Why would I publish articles that make people angry enough

to stop subscribing? That's easy. These three stories cover

subjects that are too important to ignore. From Antarctica to

Alaska to Bangladesh, a global warming trend is altering

habitats, with devastating ecological and economic effects. .

. . This isn't science fiction or a Hollywood movie. We're

not going to show you waves swamping the Statue of Liberty.

But we are going to take you all over the world to show you

the hard truth as scientists see it. I can live with some

canceled memberships. I'd have a harder time looking at

myself in the mirror if I didn't bring you the biggest story

in geography today.

The articles highlight many interesting facts. Dr. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University collects ice cores from glaciers around the world, including the famed snows of Kilimanjaro, which could vanish in 15 years. According to Dr. Thompson, ``What glaciers are telling us, is that it's now warmer than it has been in the past 2,000 years over vast areas of the planet.'' Many of the ice cores he has in his freezer may soon contain the only remains of the glaciers from which they came from.

Highlighted quotes from the articles include:

Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening

during the span of a human lifetime; the future breakdown of

the thermohaline circulation remains a disturbing

possibility; more than a hundred million people worldwide

live within three feet of mean sea level; at some point, as

temperatures continue to rise, species will have no room to

run; the natural cycles of interdependent creatures may fall

out of sync; and we'll have a better idea of the actual

changes in 30 years. But it's going to be a very different

world.

Global warming demands urgent action on all fronts, and we have an obligation to promote the technologies that can help us meet the challenge. Our aim has never been simply to introduce climate stewardship legislation. Rather our purpose is to have legislation enacted to begin to address the urgent global warming crisis that is upon us. This effort cannot be about political expediency. It must be about practical realities and addressing the most pressing issue facing not only our Nation, but the world. We believe that our legislation offers practical and effective solutions and we urge each member's careful consideration and support.

I want to describe some of the amendment's major provisions designed to enhance innovation and commercialization in key areas. These include zero and low greenhouse gas emitting power generation, such as nuclear, coal gasification, solar and other renewables, geological carbon sequestration, and biofuels:

The amendment directs the Secretary of Commerce, through the former Technology Administration, which would be renamed the Innovation Administration, to develop and implement new policies that foster technological innovation to address global warming. These new directives include: Developing and implementing strategic plans to promote technological innovation; identifying and removing barriers to the research, development, and commercialization of key technologies; prioritizing and maximizing key federal R&D programs to aid innovation; establishing public/private partnerships to meet vital innovation goals; and promoting national infrastructure and educational initiatives that support innovation objectives.

It also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to establish public/ private partnerships to promote the commercialization of climate change technologies by working with industry to advance the design and demonstration of zero and low emission technologies in the transportation and electric generation sectors. Specifically, the Secretary would be authorized to partner with industry to share the costs (50/50) of ``first-of-a-kind'' designs for advanced coal, nuclear energy, solar and biofuels. Moreover, each time that a utility builds a plant based on the ``first-of-a-kind engineering'' design authorized by this amendment, a ``royalty'' type payment will be paid by the utility to reimburse the original amount provided by the government.

After the detail design phase is complete, the Secretary would be able to provide loans or loan guarantees (up to 80 percent) for the construction of these new designs, including: Three nuclear plant designs certified by the NRC that would produce zero greenhouse gas emissions; three advanced coal gasification plants with carbon capture and storage that make use of our abundant coal resources while storing carbon emissions underground; three large scale solar energy plants to begin to tap the enormous potential of this completely clean energy source;

and three large scale facilities to produce the clean, efficient, and plentiful biofuel of the future--cellulosic ethanol.

The loan program will be administered by a Climate Technology Financing Board, whose membership will include the Secretary of Energy, a representative from the Climate Change Credit Corporation, as would be created in the amendment, and others with pertinent expertise. Once each plant is operational, the private partner will be obligated to pay back these loans from the government, as is the case with any construction loan.

I think it is important to be very clear about this ambitious, but necessary, technology title. We intend that much, if not all, of the costs of the demonstration initiatives, along with the loan program, will be financed by the early sale of emission allowances through the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program. While we would prefer to allow for the Corporation to expend these funds directly, our budgetary process doesn't readily lend itself to allow this--direct spending is not a popular proposition these days. Therefore, the amendment authorizes the revenues generated under the program to then be appropriated for these key technology programs. However, the industry and the market will actually be footing much of the bill, not the taxpayers. And, as I already mentioned, the amendment requires that any federal money used to build plants will be repaid by the utility when the plant becomes operational.

Finally, the amendment contains a mechanism requiring utilities to pay reimbursement ``royalties'' as they build plants based on zero and low emission designs created with federal assistance. Again, this approach is more fair and certain than requiring taxpayers to cover the entire costs of these programs. But there will be some costs. That is why it is important to weigh these expenditures against the staggering cost of inaction on global warming. I think we'll find more than a justified cost-benefit outcome.

In addition to promoting new or underutilized technologies, the amendment also includes a provision to aid in the deployment of available and efficient energy technologies. This would be accomplished through a ``reverse auction'' provision, which would establish a cost effective and proven mechanism for federal procurement and incentives. Providers' ``bids'' would be evaluated by the Secretary on their ability to reduce, eliminate, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions.

The ``reverse auction'' program also would be funded initially by the early sale of emission allowances. Eventually, the program would be funded by the proceeds from the annual auction of tradeable allowances conducted by the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program.

I want to clarify that this amendment doesn't propose to dictate to industry what is economically prudent for their particular operations. Rather, it provides a basis for the selection and implementation of their own market-based solutions, using a flexible emissions trading system model that has successfully reduced acid rain pollution under the Clean Air Act at a fraction of anticipated costs (less than 10 percent of the costs that some had predicted when the legislation was enacted). That successful model can and must be used to address this urgent and growing global warming crisis upon us.

The ``cap and trade'' approach to emission management is a method endorsed by Congress and free-market proponents for over 15 years after it was first applied to sulfur dioxide pollution. Applying the same model to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a matter of good policy and simple, common sense. It is an approach endorsed by industry leaders such as Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, one of the largest companies in the U.S.

Moreover using the proven market principles that underlie cap and trade will harness American ingenuity and innovation and do more to spur the innovation and commercialization of advanced environmental technologies than any system of previous energy-bill style subsidies that Congress can devise.

Three decades of assorted energy bills prove that while subsidies to promote alternative energy technologies may sometimes help, alone they are not transformational. In the 1970's, Americans were waiting in line for limited supplies of high priced gasoline. We created a Department of Energy to help us find a better way. Yet today, 30 years later, we remain wedded to fossil fuels, economically beholden to the Middle East and we continue to alter the makeup of the upper atmosphere with the ever-increasing volume of greenhouse gas emissions. Our dividend is continued energy dependence and global warming that places our nation and the globe at enormous environmental and economic risk. Not a very good deal.

Cap and trade is the transformational mechanism for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, protecting the global environment, diversifying the nation's energy mix, advancing our economy, and spurring the development and deployment of new and improved technologies that can do the job. It is indispensable to the task before us.

The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act does not prescribe the exact formula by which allowances will be allocated under a cap and trade system. This should be determined administratively through a process developed with great care to achieve the principles and purposes of the Act. This includes assuring that high emitting utilities have ample incentives to clean up and can make emission reductions economically and that low emitting utilities are treated justly and recognized for their efficiency. Getting this balance right will not be easy, but it can and must be done.

The fact remains that, if enacted, the bill's emission cap will not go into effect for another five years. In the interim there is much that the country can and should do to promote the most environmentally and economically promising technologies. This includes removing unnecessary barriers to commercialization of new technologies so that new plants, products, and processes can move more efficiently from design and development, to demonstration and, ultimately, to the market place. Again, without cap and trade, these efforts will pale, but the new technology title we propose will work hand in glove with the emission cap and trade system to meet our objectives.

As I already mentioned, the new title contains a host of measures to promote the commercialization of zero and low-emission electric generation technologies, including nuclear, clean coal, solar and other renewable energies, and biofuels.

National Commission on Energy Policy Approach will not address the

problem

We have come a long, long way in recognizing the reality of this problem. Some former skeptics not only have acknowledged that global warming is real, but agree that we have to do something about it. The challenge now is to make sure that the medicine fits the ailment, rather than to engage in half-measures that might check a political box but do nothing to actually solve the problem. As Washington proves time and again, half-measures are worse than doing nothing because they give Congress a false sense of accomplishment and merely delay the necessary, and often more difficult, actions.

It is my understanding that some members have been preparing an alternative proposal to address climate change--one which would incorporate the recommendations of the National Commission on Energy Policy. The Commission has recommended an approach that seems to be intended to initially slow the projected growth in domestic greenhouse gas emissions, but not to reduce such emissions, as our proposal would provide. And there is some question as to the extent to which emissions would be allowed to increase in the near term under the Commission's approach. It also includes what is being termed a ``safety valve'' mechanism, which is more of an escape valve, which would allow for additional allowances to be purchased to emit additional emissions. ``Pay and pollute'' is hardly the way to reducing the factors contributing to climate change.

The problem with the Commission's recommendations is that there is no guarantee that any reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases would result. It has been demonstrated that

we could meet the Commission's emission intensity targets while still increasing our actual emissions. The emissions intensity approach is the same as that proposed by the Administration. And, as we well know, that approach is not working nor does it allow for us to join with our friends in the international community in jointly addressing this worldwide problem.

Further, the Commission's safety valve proposal precludes any interface with the international trading market which would restrict the number of market opportunities for achieving low cost reductions. The U.S. simply would be trading with itself, which makes the cost of compliance even higher.

If we look at the science of the Earth's climate system, it does not react to emission intensity, but rather, to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So, if we are truly committed to addressing climate change, we need to act in a manner that actually addresses the related problems and not those that may make for good sound bites but are otherwise ineffective.

As we evaluate different climate proposals, the fundamental question that should be asked is: ``What is the environmental benefit?''

Under the Commission's plan, the answer could be ``none'' since, as I mentioned, the safety valve essentially allows industry to buy its way out of the problem, which of course, results in no environmental benefit. As we well know, such costs would simply be passed on to consumers, but how would be consumers benefit? Would they get cleaner air? A better environment? Furthermore by having such an ``escape valve'', the powers of innovation and technology development to substantially reduce costs is strangled. Why invest in new technologies when you have the guaranteed option to just ``pay and pollute?''

Of course, I welcome the growing level of interest and discussion by the Senate on what many have called ``the greatest environmental threat of out time.'' However, the proposal as recommended by the Commission doesn't go far enough to address that great threat. And it has the potential to generate huge costs to the taxpayers with no environmental benefit.

I want to take some time to address the amendment's nuclear provisions. Although these provisions are only part of the comprehensive technology package, I'm sure they will be the focus of much attention.

I know that some of our friends in the environmental community maintain strong objections to nuclear energy, even though it supplies nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. and much higher proportions in places such as France, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland--countries that aren't exactly known for their environmental disregard. But the fact is, nuclear is, producing emissions, while the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity produces approximately 33 percent of the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to air pollution affecting our communities

The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude of the threat posed by global warming which most regard as the greatest environmental threat to the planet.

The International Energy Agency estimates that the world's energy consumption is expected to rise over 65 percent within the next fifteen years. If the demand for electricity is met using traditional coal- fired power plants, not only will we fail to reduce carbon emissions as necessary, the level of carbon in the atmosphere will skyrocket, intensifying the greenhouse effect and the global warming it produces.

As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S. electricity produced by this zero-emission technology will actually decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not replaced with higher-emitting alternatives. I, for one, believe it can and should play an even greater role, not because I have some inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming.

In a recent editorial by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, Mr. Kristof made the following observation: ``It's increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green.'' He goes on to quote James Lovelock, a British scientist who created the Gaia principle that holds the earth is a self-regulating organism. He quoted Mr. Lovelock as follows:

I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to

drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Every

year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our

descendents Only one immediately available source does not

cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy.

I have always been and will remain a committed supporter of solar and renewable energy. Renewables hold great promise, and, indeed, the technology title contains equally strong incentives in their favor. But today solar and renewables account for only about 3 percent of our energy mix. We have a long way to go, and that is one of the objectives of this legislation--to help promote these energy technologies.

I want to stress nothing in this title alters, in any way, the responsibilities and authorities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Safety and security will remain, as they should, paramount in the citing, design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. And the winnowing effect of the tree market, as it should, will still determine which technologies succeed or fail in the market place. But the idea that a zero-emission technology such as nuclear has little or no place in our energy mix is just as antiquated, out-of-step and counter-productive as our continued dependence on fossil fuels. Should it prevail, our climate stewardship and clean air goals will be virtually impossible to meet.

The environmental benefit of nuclear energy is exactly why during his tenure, my friend, Morris Udall, one of the greatest environmental champions the United States has ever known, sponsored legislation in the House, as I did in the Senate, to develop a standardized nuclear reactor that would maximize safety, security, and efficiency. The Department of Energy has done much of the work called for by that legislation. Now it's time for the logical next steps. The new title of this legislation promotes these steps by authorizing federal partnership to develop first of a kind engineering for the latest reactor designs, and then to construct three demonstration plants. Once the demonstration has been made, tree-market competition will take it from there. And the amendment provides similar partnership mechanisms for the other clean technologies, so we are in no way favoring one technology over another.

No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the federal government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize new and beneficial nuclear designs. I have spent 20 years in this body fighting for the responsible use of taxpayer dollars and against pork- barrel spending and corporate welfare. I will continue to do so.

The fact remains that fossil fuels have been subsidized for many decades at levels that can scarcely be calculated. The enormous economic costs of damage caused by air pollution and 11 greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil-fueled technologies. Yet it's a cost that we all bear, too often in terms of ill-health and diminished quality of life. That is simply a matter of fact.

It's also inescapable that the ability to ``externalize'' these costs places clean competitors at a great disadvantage. Based on that fact, and in light of the enormous environmental and economic risk posed by global warming, I believe that providing zero and low emission technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market place where they can compete, and either sink or swim, is responsible public policy, and a matter of simple public necessity, particularly, as we enact a cap on carbon emissions.

The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarine for more than 50 years and has an impressive safety and performance record. The Naval Reactors program has demonstrated that nuclear power can be done safely. One of

the underpinning of its safety record is the approach used in its reactor designs, which is to learn and built upon previous designs. Unfortunately for the commercial nuclear industry, they have not had the opportunity to use such an approach since the industry has not been able to build a reactor in over the past 25 years. This lapse in construction has led us to where we are today with the industry's aging infrastructure. As we have learned from other industries, this in itself represents a great risk to public safety.

I want to close my comments on the nuclear provisions with two thoughts. A recent article in Technology Review seems particularly pertinent to those with reservations about nuclear power. It stated, ``The best way for doubters to control a new technology is to embrace it, lest it remain in the hands of the enthusiasts.'' This is particularly sage advice because, frankly, the facts make it inescapably clear--those who are serious about the problem of global warming are serious about finding a solution. And the rule of nuclear energy which has no emissions has to be given due consideration.

Don't simply take my word regarding the magnitude of the global warming problem.

In 2001, President Bush wanted an assessment of climate change science. He further stated that climate change policy should be based upon sound science. He then turned to the National Academy of Sciences for an analysis of some key issues concerning climate change.

Shortly thereafter, the National Academy of Sciences reported that, ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities[.]''

As I mentioned earlier, the National Academy along with the national academies of 10 other countries are now calling for not only action, but prompt action for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Let's also consider the warning on NASA's website which states: ``With the possible exception of another world war, a giant asteroid, or an incurable plague, global warming may be the single largest threat to our planet.''

Also consider the words of the EPA that: ``Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forest, crop yields and water supplies[.]''

And let's consider the views of President Bush's Science Advisor, Dr. John Marburger, who says that, ``Global warming exists, and we have to do something about it, and what we have to do about it is reduce carbon dioxide.'' Again, the chief science advisor to the President of the United States says that global warming exists, and what we have to do about it is to reduce carbon dioxide!

The road ahead on climate change is a difficult and challenging one. However, with the appropriate investments in technology and the innovation process, we can and will prevail. Innovation and technology have helped us face many of our national challenges in the past, and can be equally important in this latest global challenge.

Advocates of the status quo seem to suggest that we do nothing, or next to nothing, about global warming because we don't know how bad the problem might become, and many of the worst effects of climate change are expected to occur in the future. This attitude reflects a selfish, live-for-today attitude unworthy of a great nation, and thankfully, not one practiced by preceding generations of Americans who devoted themselves to securing a bright and prosperous tomorrow for future generations, not just their own.

When looking back at Earth from space, the astronauts of Apollo 11 could see features such as the Great Wall of China and forest fires dotting the globe. They were moved by how small, solitary and fragile the earth looked from space. Our small, solitary and fragile planet is the only one we have and the United States of America is privileged to lead in all areas bearing on the advance of mankind. And lead again, we must, Mr. President. It is our privilege and sacred obligation as Americans.

I thank Senator Inhofe. He and I obviously have fundamental disagreements, and this probably won't be the last time we discuss our fundamental disagreement.

I ask unanimous consent to print a letter from the chairman of the Environment Committee in the European Parliament in the Record.

This is a letter to Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman from the chairman of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament. Basically, it says--astonishingly, I am shocked--I have reviewed a study prepared by the American Petroleum Institute, that unbiased bystander on this issue, ``claiming that the United States has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions intensity more than most other European Union countries and more than the EU as a whole. Similar claims were apparently repeated on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday, including remarks made by Senator Michael B. Enzi . . . While we can not be absolutely sure that the EU will be able to meet its Kyoto target . . . this claim truly misrepresents the performance of the European Union and its member states compared to the United States,'' which it does.

It should surprise no one that the American Petroleum Institute would put out less than an objective study.

Yesterday, Senator Voinovich and others referred to analysis by Charles River Associates concerning our climate change amendment, stating it would result in the loss of 24,000 to 47,000, blah, blah, blah. I think it is important to know that the Charles River Associates study was funded by an outfit called United for Jobs, Americans for Tax Reform, and various other industry-related entities, including petroleum-related organizations. It is based on totally false assumptions, including assuming a 70-year time line. I ask unanimous consent that a rebuttal to the Charles River Associates climate stewardship assumption article be printed in the Record.

The analysis is clearly flawed, and we all know that it is flawed. Of course, this is what we always hear whenever there is a proposal that would improve our environment and our lives and others. It is the apocalypse now.

I would like for my colleagues to take note from this well-known sensationalist rag on the supermarket shelves, the National Geographic, which published probably one of the more comprehensive and in-depth pieces ever done called ``Global Warming, Bulletins From a Warmer World.'' The National Geographic, as they usually do, does an incredibly in-depth job to describe what is already happening and what will be happening in the future.

It reads, in part:

The climate is changing at an unnerving pace. Glaciers are

retreating. Ice shelves are fracturing. Sea level is rising.

Permafrost is melting. What role will humans play?

I hope my colleagues, when they have a chance, will read that.

I would like Members to look at this picture. This is Lake Powell. It was down to its lowest level since it was built. We did get some rain this winter, and there has been some change. A heat-damaged reef in the Indian Ocean offers poor habitat for passing fish. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the Great Barrier Reef is predicted to be dying. This once was a lake, Lake Chad in Africa. The pictures go on and on. But perhaps one of the most important, of course, is the Arctic icecap. We know that the Arctic and the Antarctic are the miner's canary of what is going on. This clearly shows in 1979 the polar icecap. And it shows in 2003 the rather dramatic reductions. Also things are happening in Greenland which are significant and alarming.

These are the CO2 records from 2004. The debate about the hockey stick is becoming one that is irrelevant because, unfortunately, we are seeing this dramatic increase.

I would like to return for a minute to the joint science academies' statement, ``Global Response to Climate Change'':

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system

as complex as the world's climate. However, there is now

strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.

Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho mentioned that scientists from India and the Chinese also signed onto this, as if they were complicit. The fact is they are scientists first, and they are from China and India; they are as alarmed about this as anyone else should be.

Two weeks ago, the National Academy of Sciences, the national academies from the G8 countries--this was not 9 years ago but 2 weeks ago--said:

The scientific understanding of climate change is now

sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps

that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long-

term reduction in net global greenhouse gases.

That is why I appreciate the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska, which recognizes there is a problem. But we have to take prompt action now.

Mr. President, I have a fact sheet on myth versus fact that responds to some of the statements made on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I don't think it is likely that we will win this vote. I don't count votes, but I have been around here long enough that I can pretty well ``take the temperature of the body.'' It is rising. That is a bad metaphor that I can probably tell what is going to happen in our vote counts. All I can do is assure my colleagues that the first time Senator Lieberman and I came to the floor, there was no document from any scientific group that was as definitive as was issued 2 weeks ago by the National Academy of Sciences.

The next time Senator Lieberman and I are on the floor--and we will be back--there will be even more definitive statements by the world scientific community, more manifestations of this terrible calamity that is besetting this great world of ours, and over time we will win. I am very confident of that because we must act.

As far as Kyoto is concerned, Senator Lieberman and I know India and China would have to join as a condition for the United States to be even part of it, and the treaty itself may have to be modified to some degree. The reason why I worry is not because of the fact that I am not confident we will win; I am worried about what happens in the meantime. The condition was far less serious the first time Senator Lieberman and I took up this issue. The first time we had a hearing in the Commerce Committee 6 years ago, it was a problem. Now it is rapidly approaching a crisis of enormous proportions. So I worry that delay means further enormous challenges to make sure the environment of this Earth is not suffering permanent damage.

I urge my colleagues, after this vote, to get briefed, to get information, travel with us, do what you can to ascertain what is happening on the Earth. I think the next time we are on the floor, we will gain a majority.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside, and the amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman be considered.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, first I would like to congratulate the sponsors of the amendment that was just passed. They did a good job on the amendment. I appreciate it because it is very indicative of where this debate has gone.

My dear friend from Connecticut and I, last October of 2003, forced a vote--or we had a vote on, basically, this issue, although we have changed this somewhat with the inclusion of the incentives for technological advances, as well as some nuclear power provisions which have proven somewhat controversial with some of our environmental friends.

At that time the debate on the amendment was: there is no such thing, it is a myth, this simply bears no relation to reality--on and on. There were some fascinating statements made about what a myth climate change was.

Now, obviously, we have, by passage of the Hagel amendment, recognized--at least by a majority of the Senate--that climate change is real and action needs to be taken. So I believe we have made significant progress since October 2003. At the same time, I have noticed on other reform issues that I have been involved in over the years, once the opponents of reform see reality, then they try to put up some kind of legislation which appears to address the issue but actually does not. Unfortunately, the amendment by my good friend from Nebraska that was just approved by the Senate simply has no bearing on the requirement that we act.

The Senator from Connecticut and I are going to present, not our opinions but evidence, scientific evidence, that climate change is real, it is happening, and as we speak we will see things happening to our environment which will have long-term devastating effects on this globe on which we reside. When we talk about scientific evidence and opinion, with the exception of those who may somehow be financially related to certain opponents of this legislation, there is very little doubt as to the scientific evidence of every objective observer, not to mention our European friends who have so concluded and are acting to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.

By the way, they have not faced Armageddon to their economies, as predicted by some of the speakers who have already addressed this issue. I found them entertaining. Do you know why I found them entertaining? Because every time I have been in a reform issue--whether it be installation of safety belts in automobiles, or airbags, or campaign finance reform--the Apocalypse was upon us.

In this amendment we encourage technology in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make energy use more efficient, and we are trying at the expense of some support to recognize that nuclear power is a very important contributor to our energy needs in the coming years, particularly since 20 percent of our energy supply is already supplied by nuclear power and those powerplants are going out of business fairly soon. We have a proposal that is balanced and fair and not only tries to minimize and, over time, reduce the damage that has already been inflicted by greenhouse gas emissions, but also will provide for energy that this world--our country as well as others-- needs.

Is this Kyoto that Senator Lieberman and I are proposing? No. Sometimes I wish that it were, but it is not. It is far less stringent in its requirements to address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. It is something that we believe is not only affordable but doable.

Does it involve some sacrifice on the part of the American people? Yes. I have to tell you, every time I talk to young Americans and say, Are you willing to make some sacrifice to prevent the occurrences that we see are happening now, these young Americans are more than willing to do so.

When we talk about jobs, these Draconian estimates of lost jobs that they have hired some think tank to come up with, what about the jobs and the economic effect on the United States of America that is already taking place when we have four hurricanes in one season in Florida; when we have greater and more extreme climatic effects generated by greenhouse gas emissions? How much is it going to cost when the great barrier reef dies? The Australian Government has said that the great barrier reef will die by--I think the year is 2040. What happens then to the food chain? What is the cost then?

What is the cost to the Alaskan Inuit Tribe when, as we speak, their villages are falling into the ocean because of the melting of the permafrost? What are those costs?

I will tell you what they are; they are astronomical. They may hire a lot of people, in the form of emergency workers and FEMA and all of that.

I have a very long statement. I am not going to take too long because I want my friend, Senator Lieberman, to talk. But why is it that our best partner in Europe, Tony Blair, is so dedicated to the proposition that we need to act on this issue? I do not find him to be an irrational individual. What does Prime Minister Tony Blair say? I think he puts it better than anyone.

The opponents, particularly my friend from Oklahoma, will come down and say all this climate change is just a myth, the Earth is not warmer, there is no real basis for this whatsoever. And he will find some obscure scientist who will say, yes, it is a myth--despite the overwhelming body of evidence that dictates that climate change is real and its effects are already being felt in a variety of ways.

Suppose the Senator from Connecticut and I, and the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, and Tony Blair, and all the Europeans, and all the signatories to the Kyoto treaty, they are all wrong and we went ahead and made these modest proposals. What would we have? We would have a cleaner Earth. We would have an Earth with a less polluted atmosphere. We

would have cleaner technologies. We would have found a way to again utilize nuclear power in a safe and efficient fashion.

But suppose that we are right. Let's suppose the National Academy of Sciences is right when they say:

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system

as complex as the world's climate, however there is now

strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.

This comes from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academies from the G8 countries along with those from Brazil, China, and India.

The scientific understanding of climate change is now

sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps

that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long-

term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

Remember, this is from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, National Academies from other G8 countries along with other countries:

We urge all nations to take prompt action to reduce the

causes of climate change, adapt to its impact, and ensure

that the issue is included in all relevant national and

international strategies.

Suppose they are right. Suppose they are right and we, as stewards of our environment, have failed to act. The consequences are clear. The effects are devastating. They are extremely difficult to reverse, as any scientist will tell you. And we will have done such a terrible thing to future generations not only in America but in the world because of our enormous contributions to the greenhouse gas emissions which are causing such devastating effects already as we speak.

I am going to yield to my friend from Connecticut. But I hope my colleagues make no mistake about what we just did, which is nothing-- which is nothing. There is nothing in the last amendment that has any requirements whatsoever--except perhaps some more reporting. I believe the time for reports is past. I think we have a sufficient number of reports and assessments. It has done nothing.

This amendment, I am sure, will be attacked--thousands of jobs will be lost, we will find some obscure scientist, some will talk about the dangers of encouraging the use of nuclear power. The fact is, we are going to win on this issue. The reason we are going to win is because every single month there is another manifestation of the terrible effects of what climate change is doing to our Earth. The problem is how late will it be when we win? How devastating will be the effects of climate change on this Earth on which we live? I am very much afraid that every day that goes by our challenge becomes greater and greater.

That is what this debate is all about. I know the chances of our passing this amendment are probably not as good as we would like. But I hope my colleagues and the American people will pay attention to this debate because it may be the most important single issue that is addressed by this Senate in all the time that I have been here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to say what is unnecessary, and that is that the Senator from Illinois just made a heartfelt statement, one of apology. All of us, I believe, who have had the opportunity to serve in public life from time to time have said things that we deeply regret. I know that I have. I can't speak for the other Members of this body. I would like to say to the Senator from Illinois, he did the right thing, a courageous thing, and I believe we can put this issue behind us. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me understand the unanimous consent agreement. The pending amendment would be set aside.

And Senator Voinovich will be recognized, and we will have a vote following that; is that correct?

Now I understand.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to support the Nation's finest: our police, fire fighters and other emergency response personnel. The ``Spectrum Availability for Emergency-response and Law-enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency Services Act,'' otherwise known as ``The SAVE LIVES Act of 2005.'' This bill is drafted in response to the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, which recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.''

To meet this recommendation, the SAVE LIVES Act would set a date certain for the allocation of spectrum to public safety agencies, specifically the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that Congress promised public safety agencies in 1997. This is a promise Congress has yet to deliver to our Nation's first responders. Access to this specific spectrum is essential to our Nation's safety and welfare as emergency communications sent over these frequencies are able to penetrate walls and travel great distances, and can assist multiple jurisdictions in deploying interoperable communications systems.

In addition to setting a date certain, this bill would authorize funds for public safety agencies to purchase emergency communications equipment and ensure that Congress has the ability to consider whether additional spectrum should be provided for public safety communications prior to the recovered spectrum being auctioned. The bill contains significant language concerning consumer education in anticipation of the digital television transition. The bill would mandate that warning labels be displayed on analog television sets sold prior to the transition, require warning language to be displayed at television retailers, command the distribution at retailers of brochures describing the television set options available to consumers, and call on broadcasters to air informational programs to better prepare consumers for the digital transition.

The bill would ensure that no television viewer's set would go ``dark'' by providing digital-to-analog converter boxes to over-the-air viewers with a household income at or below 200 percent of the poverty line and by allowing cable companies to down convert digital signal signals if necessary. I continue to believe that broadcast television is a powerful communications tool and important information source for citizens. I know that on 9/11, I learned about the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon by watching television like most Americans. Therefore, this bill seeks to not only protect citizens' safety, but also the distribution of broadcast television.

Lastly, the bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to report to Congress on the need for a national electronic waste recycling program.

The 9/11 Commission's final report contained harrowing tales about police officers and fire fighters who were inside the twin towers and unable to receive evacuation orders over their radios from commanders. In fact, the report found that this inability to communicate was not only a problem for public safety organizations responding at the World Trade Center, but also for those responding at the Pentagon and Somerset County, Pennsylvania crash sites where multiple organizations and multiple jurisdictions responded. Therefore, the Commission recommended that Congress accelerate the availability of additional spectrum for public safety.

The SAVE LIVES Act would implement that important recommendation and ensure that WHEN our Nation experiences another attack, or other critical emergencies occur, our police, fire fighters and other emergency response personnel will have the ability to communicate with each other and their commanders to prevent another catastrophic loss of life. Now is the time for Congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place.

Several lawmakers attempted to act last year during the debate on the Intelligence reform bill, but our efforts were thwarted by the powerful National Association of Broadcasters. This year, I hope we can all work together and pass a bill that ensures the country is not only better prepared in case of another attack, but also protects the vital communications outlet of broadcast television. I believe the SAVE LIVES Act achieves both goals.

In an effort to expeditiously retrieve the spectrum for the Nation's first responders, to preserve over-the-air television accessibility to consumers and to ensure the adequate funding of both, I urge the enactment of The SAVE LIVES Act. Additionally, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I agree that clean, renewable energy technologies are an important part of a program to achieve our national energy and environmental goals. However, I do not believe that a Federal renewable portfolio standard achieves this objective.

Twenty-three States have already adopted renewable technology standards and have committed resources to find cleaner and more efficient technologies to meet their energy needs. For example, Arizona is in the process of increasing its renewable target to 15 percent by 2020, exceeding the proposed Federal standard in the amendment. I expect that Arizona will implement its program in a manner that makes the most of the State's solar potential in the long-term.

I do not believe that the proposed Federal standard would help Arizona or any other State fully achieve their clean energy and efficiency goals. I also understand that the penalty for noncompliance with the proposed Federal standard is significantly lower than the incremental cost of bringing renewables on line. While I do not believe the intent of this amendment is to impose an energy tax on consumers, I think that could be the economic reality in many circumstances.

My colleague from Tennessee has argued persuasively that this Federal RPS is primarily a wind-power bill. I was interested to read in a fact sheet from the Union of Concerned Scientists that, to achieve this 10- percent Federal RPS, we would need to build almost 55,000 new wind turbines. That is an enormous number. I suspect that the potential adverse environmental effect such a massive construction project have not been studied. In fact, it has already been suggested that in the rush to take advantage of the current tax credit for wind generation analyses of potential long-term consequences have been neglected.

I am not opposed to wind-power, but I have heard from utilities in my own State that a Federal mandate of this sort is largely a requirement to import wind, since Arizona has very limited wind resources. We are already providing substantial subsidies for wind-power and the energy tax title will provide more. I question why we need to subsidize wind to the practical exclusion of other renewables.

The need for energy sustainability and cost-effectiveness does influence my opposition to this amendment. What we need to do, what we must do, is enact a mandatory cap and trade program for greenhouse gas reduction and let the market drive the technology. A Federal RPS would stand in sharp contrast to the market-based solutions in the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which Senator Lieberman and I introduced last month. That legislation would promote clean and efficient energy technologies

without relying solely on taxpayer subsidies or choosing particular technologies over others. That is the vision I have for our energy future--a clean, efficient and innovative mix of technologies that benefit all Americans.

Mr. President, I strongly support the objective of Senator Cantwell's amendment. It is difficult to disagree with legislation that proposes to achieve the important goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, the amendment is an exercise in setting expectations without establishing how they will be met. As such, I cannot support it.

The job of Congress is not only to determine policy objectives, but also to establish the means to achieving such goals in a manner that best services the public interest. While this amendment sets aggressive goals for cutting America's dependence on foreign oil, it places the total burden on the President and the administration to develop and implement the measures to reduce our dependence without one iota of guidance as to how this reduction should occur. Frankly, that is both a risky and an irresponsible proposition.

What if this or any future President were to decide to meet this amendment's targets by drilling in ANWR, or by raising gasoline taxes? This amendment does not speak to those policy options, and--as shown by the examples I have set forth--the end of reducing our dependence on foreign oil does not necessarily justify the means. Instead of relying on wishful thinking and trust that the executive branch will do the right thing, we should consider and approve commonsense policies that will make our Nation more energy efficient, less dependent on foreign oil, and more competitive in the global energy market, and that will effectively address global warming.

The national energy policy that we establish in this Congress will deeply impact our security, economy, and our environment. Even though we agree on goals, we cannot in good faith transfer all responsibility for determining how to achieve them to the executive branch. That is a dereliction of our duty as Senators--a duty that I take seriously and will not relinquish merely to show that I support the laudable goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. President, today I introduce the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education Amendments Act of 2005 to revise the Act.

In 2000, Congress authorized the establishment of a Federally- chartered non-profit foundation to further the educational opportunities for Native American students. This foundation, named the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education, was established in July, 2004 and has the potential for success in providing critical support to Native American students.

The legislation I introduce today will enable the foundation to become self-sufficient by authorizing appropriations for endowment or seed money and authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding for the foundation's operating costs on a reimbursement basis. The legislation authorizes $5 million each fiscal year 2007 through 2009 and increases the administration cost limit from 10 percent to 15 percent of donations and transferred funds. This bill will also allow the Board to appoint the Chief Operating Officer who will be experienced in Indian education.

Mr. President, this legislation will provide significant improvements for the foundation in its mission of advancing Indian education and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to support the Nation's finest: our police, fire fighters and other emergency response personnel. The Spectrum Availability for Emergency- response and Law-enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency Services Act, otherwise known as The SAVE LIVES Act. This bill is drafted in response to the 9-11 Commission's final report, which recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.''

To meet this recommendation, the SAVE LIVES Act would set a date certain for the allocation of spectrum to public safety agencies, specifically the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that Congress promised public safety agencies in 1997. This is a promise Congress has yet to deliver to our Nation's first responders. Now is the time for congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place. Access to this specific spectrum is essential to our Nation's safety and welfare as emergency communications sent over these frequencies are able to penetrate walls and travel great distances, and can assist multiple jurisdictions in deploying interoperable communications systems.

In addition to setting a date certain, this bill would authorize funds for public safety agencies to purchase emergency communications equipment and ensure that Congress has the ability to consider whether additional spectrum should be provided for public safety communications prior to the recovered spectrum being auctioned. The bill contains significant language concerning consumer education of the digital television transition. The bill would mandate that warning labels be displayed on analog television sets sold prior to the transition, require warning language to be displayed at television retailers, command the distribution at retailers of brochures describing the television set options available, and call on broadcasters to air informational programs to better prepare consumers for the digital transition.

The bill would ensure that no television viewer's set would go ``dark'' by providing digital-to-analog converter boxes to over-the-air viewers that have a household income that does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line and by allowing cable companies to down convert digital signal signals if necessary. I continue to believe that broadcast television is a powerful communications tool and important information source for citizens. I know that on 9/11, I learned about the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon like most Americans--by watching television. Therefore, this bill seeks to not only protect citizens' safety but also the distribution of broadcast television.

Lastly, the bill would establish a tax credit for the recycling of television sets and require the Environmental Protection Agency to report to Congress on the need for a national electronic waste recycling program.

The 9-11 Commission's final report contained harrowing tales about police officers and fire fighters who were inside the Twin Towers and unable to receive evacuation orders over their radios from commanders. In fact, the report found that this inability to communicate was not only a problem for public safety organizations responding at the World Trade Center, but also for those responding at the Pentagon and Somerset County, PA, crash sites where multiple organizations and multiple jurisdictions responded. Therefore, the Commission recommended that Congress accelerate the availability of more spectrum for public safety.

The SAVE LIVES Act would implement the important recommendation and ensure that when our Nation experiences another attack, or other critical emergencies occur, our police, fire fighters, and other emergency response personnel will have the ability to communicate with each other and their commanders to prevent another catastrophic loss of life. Now is the time for congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place.

Several lawmakers attempted to act last year during the debate on the intelligence reform bill, but our efforts were thwarted by the powerful National Association of Broadcasters. This year, I hope we can all work together and to pass a bill that ensures the country is not only better prepared in case of another attack but also protects the vital communications outlet of broadcast television. I believe the SAVE LIVES Act does just that.

Mr. President, in an effort to expeditiously retrieve the spectrum for the Nation's first responders, to preserve over-the-air television accessibility to consumers and to ensure the adequate funding of both, I urge the enactment of the SAVE LIVES Act.

Mr. President, today I introduce the American Indian Elderly and Disabled Access to Health Care Act of 2005 to revise the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

The legislation I introduce today will amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to permit the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, tribal or Urban Indian organization to use their funding to pay the Medicare Part D premiums of eligible Indian beneficiaries. These premium payments are for the American Indians and Alaska Natives enrolled in the prescription drug plans under part D of title XVIll of the Social Security Act. Currently, these funds can be used for paying Medicare Parts A and B premiums but not Part D, and this legislation will enable eligible Indian beneficiaries to enroll and participate in the Part D program when it begins in January, 2006.

Mr. President, this legislation will increase the ability of the elderly and disabled American Indians and Alaska Natives to access the prescription drug benefits available under Medicare Part D and assist the Indian Health Service in achieving potentially significant cost savings. I urge my colleagues to join me in improving access to health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education Amendments Act of 2005 to revise the Act.

In 2000, Congress authorized the establishment of a Federally- chartered non-profit foundation to further the educational opportunities for Native American students. This foundation, named the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education, was established in July, 2004 and has the potential for success in providing critical support to Native American students.

The legislation I introduce today will enable the foundation to become self-sufficient by authorizing appropriations for endowment or seed money and authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding for the foundation's operating costs on a reimbursement basis. The legislation authorizes $5 million each fiscal year 2007 through 2009 and increases the administration cost limit from 10 percent to 15 percent of donations and transferred funds. This bill will also allow the Board to appoint the Chief Operating Officer who will be experienced in Indian education.

Mr. President, this legislation will provide significant improvements for the foundation in its mission of advancing Indian education and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to support the Nation's finest: our police, fire fighters and other emergency response personnel. The Spectrum Availability for Emergency- response and Law-enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency Services Act, otherwise known as The SAVE LIVES Act. This bill is drafted in response to the 9-11 Commission's final report, which recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.''

To meet this recommendation, the SAVE LIVES Act would set a date certain for the allocation of spectrum to public safety agencies, specifically the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that Congress promised public safety agencies in 1997. This is a promise Congress has yet to deliver to our Nation's first responders. Now is the time for congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place. Access to this specific spectrum is essential to our Nation's safety and welfare as emergency communications sent over these frequencies are able to penetrate walls and travel great distances, and can assist multiple jurisdictions in deploying interoperable communications systems.

In addition to setting a date certain, this bill would authorize funds for public safety agencies to purchase emergency communications equipment and ensure that Congress has the ability to consider whether additional spectrum should be provided for public safety communications prior to the recovered spectrum being auctioned. The bill contains significant language concerning consumer education of the digital television transition. The bill would mandate that warning labels be displayed on analog television sets sold prior to the transition, require warning language to be displayed at television retailers, command the distribution at retailers of brochures describing the television set options available, and call on broadcasters to air informational programs to better prepare consumers for the digital transition.

The bill would ensure that no television viewer's set would go ``dark'' by providing digital-to-analog converter boxes to over-the-air viewers that have a household income that does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line and by allowing cable companies to down convert digital signal signals if necessary. I continue to believe that broadcast television is a powerful communications tool and important information source for citizens. I know that on 9/11, I learned about the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon like most Americans--by watching television. Therefore, this bill seeks to not only protect citizens' safety but also the distribution of broadcast television.

Lastly, the bill would establish a tax credit for the recycling of television sets and require the Environmental Protection Agency to report to Congress on the need for a national electronic waste recycling program.

The 9-11 Commission's final report contained harrowing tales about police officers and fire fighters who were inside the Twin Towers and unable to receive evacuation orders over their radios from commanders. In fact, the report found that this inability to communicate was not only a problem for public safety organizations responding at the World Trade Center, but also for those responding at the Pentagon and Somerset County, PA, crash sites where multiple organizations and multiple jurisdictions responded. Therefore, the Commission recommended that Congress accelerate the availability of more spectrum for public safety.

The SAVE LIVES Act would implement the important recommendation and ensure that when our Nation experiences another attack, or other critical emergencies occur, our police, fire fighters, and other emergency response personnel will have the ability to communicate with each other and their commanders to prevent another catastrophic loss of life. Now is the time for congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place.

Several lawmakers attempted to act last year during the debate on the intelligence reform bill, but our efforts were thwarted by the powerful National Association of Broadcasters. This year, I hope we can all work together and to pass a bill that ensures the country is not only better prepared in case of another attack but also protects the vital communications outlet of broadcast television. I believe the SAVE LIVES Act does just that.

Mr. President, in an effort to expeditiously retrieve the spectrum for the Nation's first responders, to preserve over-the-air television accessibility to consumers and to ensure the adequate funding of both, I urge the enactment of the SAVE LIVES Act.

Mr. President, today I introduce the American Indian Elderly and Disabled Access to Health Care Act of 2005 to revise the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

The legislation I introduce today will amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to permit the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, tribal or Urban Indian organization to use their funding to pay the Medicare Part D premiums of eligible Indian beneficiaries. These premium payments are for the American Indians and Alaska Natives enrolled in the prescription drug plans under part D of title XVIll of the Social Security Act. Currently, these funds can be used for paying Medicare Parts A and B premiums but not Part D, and this legislation will enable eligible Indian beneficiaries to enroll and participate in the Part D program when it begins in January, 2006.

Mr. President, this legislation will increase the ability of the elderly and disabled American Indians and Alaska Natives to access the prescription drug benefits available under Medicare Part D and assist the Indian Health Service in achieving potentially significant cost savings. I urge my colleagues to join me in improving access to health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important resolution. I commend my friends and colleagues, Senator Landrieu and Senator Allen, for their leadership on this important issue.

It is difficult to address this subject without noting the shameful record of Senate inaction on the issue of lynching. As noted in the text of the resolution, 4,742 people were lynched in the

United States between 1882 and 1968. During that time, 7 U.S. Presidents pushed for Congressional action on what had succeeded slavery as the ultimate expression of racism. Between 1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives passed strong antilynching measures on three different occasions. Sadly, the Senate failed to do its duty to enable antilynching legislation to be enacted, thus allowing this despicable, murderous practice to continue.

This Senate Resolution is long, long overdue. As we all know, the Senate has a basic Federal responsibility to provide protection to those in need. While our predecessors failed in that regard, we have an opportunity today to begin healing the wounds that this body's failures have inflicted upon the African American community for so many years.

The apology we issue today comes too late for the thousands of Americans brutally slain in this abhorrent manner. Hopefully, by our acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and our sincere apology, we can bring some solace to the family members who still recall--all too vividly-- the horror of having a loved one murdered by lynching.

We must never forget the thousands of men, women and children who were deprived of life, human dignity, and the Constitutional protections that are to be accorded all U.S. citizens, We have a responsibility--to all Americans--to ensure that the tragedy of lynching, and this body's failure to address it, will neither be forgotten, nor repeated.

Mr. President, I would like to ask if we could get a unanimous consent request here. The Senator from Arizona, my colleague from Arizona, I believe is next. How long does he wish?

The Senator from Massachusetts?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona be recognized for 10 minutes, the Senator from Massachusetts for 10 minutes, and me for 10 minutes following that.

Fine.

I ask that the Senator from Florida be recognized following Senator Obama.

Mr. President, I rise to speak again in support of John Bolton's confirmation as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. When I spoke in April in favor of Mr. Bolton, I highlighted a number of his qualities, including that he is smart, experienced, hard working, talented, and he knows the United Nations. In view of these and other impressive qualifications, the Senate has confirmed him four times in the past.

It is worth repeating several times: The Senate has done its work and confirmed him four times in the past.

In his current job as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, he has compiled a record of accomplishment. For example, next week marks the second anniversary of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a multilateral effort to stop trafficking of weapons of mass destruction and their components. John Bolton spearheaded this program since its inception, and today more than 60 countries support it. This success alone should disprove the argument that Mr. Bolton is somehow an arch unilateralist, bent on subverting collective international action.

The PSI is not his only multilateral success. He has also helped to construct the G-8's global partnership to secure dangerous technologies and materials. He led the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Moscow which dramatically reduced the size of deployed nuclear arsenals in the United States and Russia, and in his previous post as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations he led the successful drive to repeal the U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism.

A lot has been made in recent weeks about Mr. Bolton's personal disposition in dealing with colleagues. Let's be frank: He is not a career diplomat either by profession or temperament, but then, the role of ambassador to the U.N. has always required something special. A look back at some of the personalities who have held this job--from Adlai Stevenson to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, from Jeane Kirkpatrick to Richard Holbrooke--shows that directness and forcefulness are assets, not hindrances, to effectiveness at the U.N.

We all know Mr. Bolton is perhaps not the world's most beloved manager nor one to keep his temper entirely under wraps. Perhaps I have a certain bias in that direction and an extra special sympathy because I am well known to my colleagues as always calm and never engaged in any controversial issues nor activities.

But seriously, I ask my colleagues, I ask seriously, is this unique to Mr. Bolton? If a temper and an unorthodox management style were disqualifiers from Government service, would that disqualify a lot of people, including maybe one or two in this body?

But the fact is, it is worth wondering not whether Mr. Bolton is a mild, gentle diplomat--we know he is not--but, rather, whether he is a representative we need at the United Nations. We need an ambassador who knows the U.N. We need an ambassador who is willing to shake up an organization that requires serious reform. Is there anyone in this Senate who does not believe the United Nations needs serious reform, an organization that has countries such as Sudan on its Human Rights Commission or whose General Assembly equates Zionism with racism?

We all know about the oil-for-food scandal that is unfolding now. We know there have been several calls for reform. One of my friends, Brent Scowcroft, served on a panel that was named by the Secretary General. And Kofi Annan has presented his own serious plan to implement these recommendations because the United Nations needs reform.

Why do I care so much? I care for a broad variety of reasons, including the fact that my taxpayer dollars support some 20 percent of the United Nations operations. The United Nations needs reform. The United Nations has failed in peacekeeping operations throughout the world. Some of the scandals concerning peacekeeping activities, of rape in the Congo, have got to be changed. The United Nations needs the presence of a tough, hard, dedicated individual who has been already confirmed in various posts four times by this Senate.

Elections have consequences. One consequence of President Bush's reelection is he has a right to appoint officials of his choice. I stress this because the President nominates. It is not my choice, or any other Senator's, but the President's choice. When President Clinton was elected, I didn't share the policy views of some of the officials he nominated, but I voted to confirm them, thinking that the President has a right to put into place the team he believes will serve him best.

The Foreign Relations Committee has spent weeks investigating Mr. Bolton's background. In his recent report on behalf of the committee majority, Senator Lugar, one of the most respected individuals in this Nation, determined ``the end result of all this is that Secretary Bolton emerged looking better than when it began.'' Chairman Lugar ultimately concluded that Mr. Bolton is a highly qualified nominee. I agree.

In the last 48 hours or so I have noticed a change in the temperature around this body. I am very pleased about it. We realized it is time to move ahead with the people's business. It is time we started addressing seriously the energy crisis in this country. It is time we got together, along with the President, in coming together to save Social Security. It is time we move forward with the Defense authorization bill and help the men and women who are defending this Nation and sacrificing as we speak.

I strongly urge my friends on the other side of the aisle, we are going to have a cloture vote this evening. After that, let's vote up or down. For my colleagues who disagree and do not want Mr. Bolton there, I respect their views. But let's go ahead and give him an up-or-down vote before we go into recess for a week. Let him go. If the Senate in its wisdom approves of his nomination, let's go ahead and let him get to work rather than wait a week or 10 days or more. We have been at this for weeks. Let's move on to other things.

If we asked our constituents, What would you like us to do, take up the Defense authorization bill? Take up an energy bill? Try to work on this deficit problem that is mortgaging their futures? Sit down and negotiate a bipartisan agreement on Social Security? Those would be their priorities. Let's move ahead tonight, have the cloture vote, have a vote on Mr. Bolton, and move forward and plan for when we come back from the recess, addressing the issues that are important to the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, after over 7 years of service, Orson Swindle announced today his resignation as Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Swindle has been dedicated to protecting the interests of the American consumer by promoting competition and fairness in the marketplace. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. Swindle's accomplishments at the FTC have been numerous, but his efforts to promote the vigorous development of the Internet and technology generally have been particularly important to our Nation's economy. His service with the Commission started shortly after the birth of electronic commerce, and it was thanks in part to Mr. Swindle's efforts to keep the Internet free of over-regulation that it is now such a robust and widely-used medium of communication, commerce, education, and political participation. All the while, Mr. Swindle has focused his efforts on educating consumers about the new online world in order to build their confidence in and knowledge of the Internet. He has also ensured that industry understands the need to self-regulate effectively or face the credible threat of Government interference and aggressive enforcement.

I commend Mr. Swindle and thank him for his outstanding service to this country, and I deeply hope that he will continue to build on his long and distinguished career as a public servant. Our Nation benefits greatly from the work of individuals such as Orson Swindle, whom I am proud to call my friend. He stands as an example for us all of commitment, achievement, and sacrifice on behalf of our Nation.