Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lieberman today in introducing an amended version of the Climate Stewardship Act, which we introduced in February.

The legislation we submit today 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 bill, 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 an 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. Because of the multiple benefits promised by this comprehensive program, we expect that the new bill will attract additional support for the vital purposes of the Climate Stewardship Act. 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 bill 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 bill--are feasible over the next 10 to 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 spurs our action today.

Before describing the details of this legislation, I think it is important to talk about what has occurred since the Senate vote on this issue in October 2003. For example, the scientific evidence of human- induced climate change has grown even more abundant. But just 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 recent 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, 2.8 degrees Celsius, 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, 3 to 6 degrees Celsius, which will most certainly lead to sea-level rise. These are remarkable new scientific findings.

It isn't surprising that just this past Tuesday, 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 a recent article in the New York Times highlighted the connection between the two issues. The article highlights that 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 Oceans 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.

In its 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 is 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 3 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. We will have a better idea of the actual changes in 30 years. But it is 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 members careful consideration and support.

I will include for the Record a more detailed description of the various components of the new technology title. However, I do want to describe some of the key 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 bill 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 cost, 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 bill, 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 bill, 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, so that industry and the market will foot much of the bill, not the taxpayers. And, as I already mentioned, the bill requires that any Federal money used to build plants will be repaid by the utility when the plant becomes operational.

Finally, the bill contains a mechanism requiring utilities to pay reimbursement ``royalties'' as they build plants based on zero and low emission designs created with Federal assistance. These funding provisions are more fair and certain than requiring taxpayers to cover the entire costs of these programs and depending upon future appropriations. But there will be some costs involved. That is why it is important to weigh these expenditures against the staggering cost of inaction on global warming. I think we will find more than a justified cost-benefit outcome.

In addition to promoting new or underutilized technologies, the bill 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 would be funded initially by the taxpayers but eventually 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 bill 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.

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 1970s, 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 5 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 marketplace. 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 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.

I want to take some time to address the bill's nuclear provisions. Although these provisions are only part of the comprehensive technology package, I am 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 clean, producing zero 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 15 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.

I would like to submit for the record a piece written 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 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 free 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 is 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, free-market competition will take it from there. And the bill 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 porkbarrel 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 greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil-fueled technologies. Yet it is 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 is 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 build 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.

Mr. President, don't simply take my word regarding the magnitude of the global warming problem. Consider the National Academy of Sciences which reported in 2001 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. . . .

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.

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, an 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 ask unanimous consent an editorial from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lieberman today in introducing an amended version of the Climate Stewardship Act, which we introduced in February.

The legislation we submit today 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 bill, 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 an 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. Because of the multiple benefits promised by this comprehensive program, we expect that the new bill will attract additional support for the vital purposes of the Climate Stewardship Act. 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 bill 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 bill--are feasible over the next 10 to 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 spurs our action today.

Before describing the details of this legislation, I think it is important to talk about what has occurred since the Senate vote on this issue in October 2003. For example, the scientific evidence of human- induced climate change has grown even more abundant. But just 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 recent 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, 2.8 degrees Celsius, 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, 3 to 6 degrees Celsius, which will most certainly lead to sea-level rise. These are remarkable new scientific findings.

It isn't surprising that just this past Tuesday, 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 a recent article in the New York Times highlighted the connection between the two issues. The article highlights that 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 Oceans 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.

In its 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 is 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 3 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. We will have a better idea of the actual changes in 30 years. But it is 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 members careful consideration and support.

I will include for the Record a more detailed description of the various components of the new technology title. However, I do want to describe some of the key 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 bill 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 cost, 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 bill, 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 bill, 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, so that industry and the market will foot much of the bill, not the taxpayers. And, as I already mentioned, the bill requires that any Federal money used to build plants will be repaid by the utility when the plant becomes operational.

Finally, the bill contains a mechanism requiring utilities to pay reimbursement ``royalties'' as they build plants based on zero and low emission designs created with Federal assistance. These funding provisions are more fair and certain than requiring taxpayers to cover the entire costs of these programs and depending upon future appropriations. But there will be some costs involved. That is why it is important to weigh these expenditures against the staggering cost of inaction on global warming. I think we will find more than a justified cost-benefit outcome.

In addition to promoting new or underutilized technologies, the bill 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 would be funded initially by the taxpayers but eventually 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 bill 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.

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 1970s, 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 5 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 marketplace. 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 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.

I want to take some time to address the bill's nuclear provisions. Although these provisions are only part of the comprehensive technology package, I am 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 clean, producing zero 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 15 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.

I would like to submit for the record a piece written 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 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 free 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 is 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, free-market competition will take it from there. And the bill 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 porkbarrel 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 greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil-fueled technologies. Yet it is 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 is 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 build 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.

Mr. President, don't simply take my word regarding the magnitude of the global warming problem. Consider the National Academy of Sciences which reported in 2001 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. . . .

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.

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, an 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 ask unanimous consent an editorial from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Stevens in introducing the Clean Sports Act of 2005. The chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, Congressman Davis, and the ranking member of that committee, Congressman Waxman, are introducing a companion bill today in the House.

The purpose of this bill is to protect the integrity of professional sports and, more importantly, the health and safety of our Nation's youth, who, for better or for worse, see professional athletes as role models. The legislation would achieve that goal by establishing minimum standards for the testing of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances by major professional sports leagues. By adhering to--and hopefully exceeding--these minimum standards, the Nation's major professional sports leagues would send a strong signal to the public that performance-enhancing drugs have no legitimate role in American sports.

This bill would prohibit our country's major professional sports leagues--the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League--from operating if they do not meet the minimum testing requirements set forth therein. Those standards would be comprised of five key components: the independence of the entity or entities that perform the leagues' drug tests; testing for a comprehensive list of doping substances and methods; a strong system of unannounced testing; significant penalties that discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs; and a fair and effective adjudication process for athletes accused of doping. These elements are crucial components of any credible performance-enhancing drug testing policy.

More specifically, the bill would require all major professional sports leagues to have an independent third party administer their performance-enhancing drug tests. The legislation would further require that samples provided by athletes be tested by laboratories approved by the United States Anti-Doping Agency--USADA--and for substances banned by USADA. In addition, the bill would require not fewer than three unannounced tests during a league's season of play, and at least two unannounced tests during the off season. Under this legislation, if a player were to test positive for a banned performance-enhancing substance, that player would be suspended for 2 years for the first violation and banned for life for a second violation. Finally, if any player were to test positive, the professional sports league would be obligated to ensure that the player would have substantial due process rights including the opportunity for a hearing and right to counsel.

To ensure that the major professional sports leagues meet the highest standards of performance-enhancing drug testing, the bill would require each professional sports league to consult with USADA in developing its drug testing standards and procedures, its protocols for tests in the off season, and its athlete adjudication program. For 5 years, USADA has served as the official antidoping agency for Olympic sports in the United States. In that role, USADA has shown a tremendous dedication to eliminating doping in sports through research, education, testing, and adjudication efforts. The expertise that it has developed over the past half-decade would serve this country's professional sports leagues well.

A violation of this legislation would be treated as a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission would have the ability to either obtain an injunction against the league that is in violation of the bill or seek penalties of up to $1 million per violation. Any enforcement mechanism that is not as strong as this would simply not be effective to ensure that these multi-billion-dollar businesses adhere to the minimum standards set forth in the legislation.

Finally, the bill would give the Office of National Drug Control Policy--ONDCP--the ability to add other professional sports leagues as well as certain college sports if the ONDCP were to determine that such additions would prevent the use of performance-enhancing substances by high school, college, or professional athletes. The bill would also require the United States Boxing Commission, upon its establishment, to promulgate steroids testing standards consistent with those contained in the bill.

The need for reforming the drug testing policies of professional sports is clear. However, I introduce this legislation reluctantly. Over a year ago, I stated publicly that the failure of professional sports--and in particular Major League Baseball--to commit to addressing the issue of doping straight on and immediately would motivate Congress to search for legislative remedies. Despite my clear warning and the significant attention that Congress has given to this stain on professional sports, baseball, and other professional leagues have refused to do the right thing.

By introducing this bill, I am once again asking the leagues to shore up the integrity of professional sports. I am asking the leagues to realize that what is at stake here is not the sanctity of collective bargaining agreements, but rather the health and safety of America's children. Like it or not, our Nation's kids look to professional athletes as role models and take cues from their actions, both good and bad.

I remain hopeful that professional sports will reform their drug testing policies on their own--a modest proposal in the eyes of reasonable people. However, the introduction of this bill demonstrates the continued seriousness with which Congress views this issue. It should be seen as a renewed incentive for the leagues to clean up their sports on their own without Government interference.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Stevens in introducing the Clean Sports Act of 2005. The chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, Congressman Davis, and the ranking member of that committee, Congressman Waxman, are introducing a companion bill today in the House.

The purpose of this bill is to protect the integrity of professional sports and, more importantly, the health and safety of our Nation's youth, who, for better or for worse, see professional athletes as role models. The legislation would achieve that goal by establishing minimum standards for the testing of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances by major professional sports leagues. By adhering to--and hopefully exceeding--these minimum standards, the Nation's major professional sports leagues would send a strong signal to the public that performance-enhancing drugs have no legitimate role in American sports.

This bill would prohibit our country's major professional sports leagues--the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League--from operating if they do not meet the minimum testing requirements set forth therein. Those standards would be comprised of five key components: the independence of the entity or entities that perform the leagues' drug tests; testing for a comprehensive list of doping substances and methods; a strong system of unannounced testing; significant penalties that discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs; and a fair and effective adjudication process for athletes accused of doping. These elements are crucial components of any credible performance-enhancing drug testing policy.

More specifically, the bill would require all major professional sports leagues to have an independent third party administer their performance-enhancing drug tests. The legislation would further require that samples provided by athletes be tested by laboratories approved by the United States Anti-Doping Agency--USADA--and for substances banned by USADA. In addition, the bill would require not fewer than three unannounced tests during a league's season of play, and at least two unannounced tests during the off season. Under this legislation, if a player were to test positive for a banned performance-enhancing substance, that player would be suspended for 2 years for the first violation and banned for life for a second violation. Finally, if any player were to test positive, the professional sports league would be obligated to ensure that the player would have substantial due process rights including the opportunity for a hearing and right to counsel.

To ensure that the major professional sports leagues meet the highest standards of performance-enhancing drug testing, the bill would require each professional sports league to consult with USADA in developing its drug testing standards and procedures, its protocols for tests in the off season, and its athlete adjudication program. For 5 years, USADA has served as the official antidoping agency for Olympic sports in the United States. In that role, USADA has shown a tremendous dedication to eliminating doping in sports through research, education, testing, and adjudication efforts. The expertise that it has developed over the past half-decade would serve this country's professional sports leagues well.

A violation of this legislation would be treated as a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission would have the ability to either obtain an injunction against the league that is in violation of the bill or seek penalties of up to $1 million per violation. Any enforcement mechanism that is not as strong as this would simply not be effective to ensure that these multi-billion-dollar businesses adhere to the minimum standards set forth in the legislation.

Finally, the bill would give the Office of National Drug Control Policy--ONDCP--the ability to add other professional sports leagues as well as certain college sports if the ONDCP were to determine that such additions would prevent the use of performance-enhancing substances by high school, college, or professional athletes. The bill would also require the United States Boxing Commission, upon its establishment, to promulgate steroids testing standards consistent with those contained in the bill.

The need for reforming the drug testing policies of professional sports is clear. However, I introduce this legislation reluctantly. Over a year ago, I stated publicly that the failure of professional sports--and in particular Major League Baseball--to commit to addressing the issue of doping straight on and immediately would motivate Congress to search for legislative remedies. Despite my clear warning and the significant attention that Congress has given to this stain on professional sports, baseball, and other professional leagues have refused to do the right thing.

By introducing this bill, I am once again asking the leagues to shore up the integrity of professional sports. I am asking the leagues to realize that what is at stake here is not the sanctity of collective bargaining agreements, but rather the health and safety of America's children. Like it or not, our Nation's kids look to professional athletes as role models and take cues from their actions, both good and bad.

I remain hopeful that professional sports will reform their drug testing policies on their own--a modest proposal in the eyes of reasonable people. However, the introduction of this bill demonstrates the continued seriousness with which Congress views this issue. It should be seen as a renewed incentive for the leagues to clean up their sports on their own without Government interference.

Mr. President today I am pleased to introduce the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2005 to revise and extend the Act.

Six years ago a steering committee of Tribal leaders, with extensive consultation by the Indian Health Service, developed a broad consensus in Indian Country about what needs to be done to improve and update health services for Indian people. In the 108th Congress significant progress was made in crafting a bill that was acceptable to all parties but still did not pass the full Senate. In the legislation introduced today, I have tried to address concerns raised last year, but understand that there may still be some differences. I look forward to continuing discussions on these differences, but am introducing the bill to get the process moving because we want to get this legislation enacted.

Over the years, Indian health care delivery has greatly expanded and tribes are taking over more health care services on the local level. Nearly 30 years ago, Congress enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to meet the fundamental trust obligation of the United States to ensure that comprehensive health care would be provided to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The health status of Indian people remains much worse than that of other Americans.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is the statutory framework for the Indian health system and covers just about every aspect of health care. It provides grants and scholarships to recruit Indians into health professions serving native communities and funds to expand the health care infrastructure. It lifted the prohibition against Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for health services provided by the Indian Health Service or the Indian tribes, and established health services for Indians in urban areas.

Reauthorization of this Act is a high legislative priority. Critical improvements have been provided in this bill including provisions exploring options for long-term care, governing children and senior issues and the following: new sources of funding for recruitment and retention purposes; access to health care, especially for Indian children and low-income Indians; more flexibility in facility construction programs; consolidated behavioral health programs for more comprehensive care; and a Commission to study and recommend the best means of providing Indian health care.

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

Mr. President today I am pleased to introduce the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2005 to revise and extend the Act.

Six years ago a steering committee of Tribal leaders, with extensive consultation by the Indian Health Service, developed a broad consensus in Indian Country about what needs to be done to improve and update health services for Indian people. In the 108th Congress significant progress was made in crafting a bill that was acceptable to all parties but still did not pass the full Senate. In the legislation introduced today, I have tried to address concerns raised last year, but understand that there may still be some differences. I look forward to continuing discussions on these differences, but am introducing the bill to get the process moving because we want to get this legislation enacted.

Over the years, Indian health care delivery has greatly expanded and tribes are taking over more health care services on the local level. Nearly 30 years ago, Congress enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to meet the fundamental trust obligation of the United States to ensure that comprehensive health care would be provided to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The health status of Indian people remains much worse than that of other Americans.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is the statutory framework for the Indian health system and covers just about every aspect of health care. It provides grants and scholarships to recruit Indians into health professions serving native communities and funds to expand the health care infrastructure. It lifted the prohibition against Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for health services provided by the Indian Health Service or the Indian tribes, and established health services for Indians in urban areas.

Reauthorization of this Act is a high legislative priority. Critical improvements have been provided in this bill including provisions exploring options for long-term care, governing children and senior issues and the following: new sources of funding for recruitment and retention purposes; access to health care, especially for Indian children and low-income Indians; more flexibility in facility construction programs; consolidated behavioral health programs for more comprehensive care; and a Commission to study and recommend the best means of providing Indian health care.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 18, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Taking Lands into Trust.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S.J. Res. 15, a joint resolution to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Missouri for their courtesy, and I will try to be brief in my statement.

Nearly 50 years ago, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was enacted into law. As I mentioned during last year's debate, the 1956 act added up to a mere 29 pages--a tiny fraction of this year's highway bill. But what it accomplished truly changed this country. The act created programs that led to the construction of the Interstate Highway System, the largest civil works project ever undertaken by the United States. The 1956 act was the brainchild of President Eisenhower to establish the highway trust fund, financed by taxes on gasoline to fund this massive undertaking. The act required the construction of an interstate highway system using a uniform design that would be safer than most U.S. highways in existence at that time.

Mr. President, today we are all the beneficiaries of the foresight of President Eisenhower and of the Congress that helped to shepherd the legislation through to enactment. The Interstate System today is 47,000 miles long, comprised of 62 superhighways crisscrossing the Nation in a grid. Twenty-four percent of all travel occurs on the interstates, and the system has obtained a record of being twice as safe as other highways.

Unfortunately, when people look back 50 years from now at the highway legislation that the Senate will consider shortly, I doubt that history will remember this as having helped improve on President Eisenhower's ``grand plan.'' We are no longer focused on building a unified transportation system to improve the safety, security, and economy of our Nation as a whole. Instead, we are faced with legislation that redistributes funding to the States in an unfair manner.

Approximately every 6 years we reauthorize our Nation's multiyear highway, transit, and safety programs. We last reauthorized these programs in 1998 with the enactment of TEA-21 following extensive debate in the Senate. In the 108th Congress we did not reauthorize these programs, and, instead, Congress passed a series of short-term extensions of TEA-21, and this happened for good reason. The bill brought to the Senate floor in the last Congress would have increased overall funding to $318 billion, $100 billion over the TEA-21 enacted level.

I commend the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for reducing the authorized number to match the President's fiscal 2006 budget proposal of $284 billion in the version of the bill reported by his committee. Reduction in the overall size of the bill was a significant improvement over the legislation presented to the Senate last year. Fiscal discipline is a key component of this debate. As Alan Greenspan warned some days ago, ``Under existing tax rates and reasonable assumptions about other spending, projections make clear that the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years.''

We need to control our spending. We must. And that is why the overall size of this bill should not be inflated. We are considering a substitute amendment to the bill that as proposed increases obligations by $11 billion, and I think that is wrong.

According to the Statement of Administration Policy regarding the highway bill, ``Should the obligation or net authorization levels that would result from the final bill exceed (that amount), the President's senior advisors will recommend that he veto the bill.''

Apparently, we are now going to test whether the President will veto the bill.

Fiscal prudence is crucial, but even if the conferees act sensibly and recognize the need for an agreement that would be acceptable to the President, that alone would not make the legislation adequate.

Equity is also crucial and, unfortunately, the highway bill that is before us retains unfair features of past bills. In some cases, it is even more unfair than last year's legislation. This year's highway bill perpetuates the historical discrepancy between donor States and donee States.

Remarkably, not only does the bill continue the disparity, it actually exacerbates it. Whereas the bill that was passed last year by the Senate would have increased theoretically every State's rate of return to 95 percent in the final year of the bill, the substitute amendment before the Senate only promises a rate of 92 percent in 2009 for those States. Until then many States would linger at a rate of return of 90.5 in the first year and 91 percent thereafter while others receive more--in some cases much more than what they contribute to the highway trust fund. As if that were not enough, this year's bill would actually propose to create further disparities between States. Although ``equity'' is in the title of the legislation, the number of donor States would increase from 28 under current law to 31. Under the Environment and Public Works Committee's so-called formula, which is less a formula than it is a series of calculations consisting of arbitrary funding caps and floors, some States would actually receive a greater rate of return than they would have under last year's bill, despite the fact that this year's overall funding is less. That is remarkable.

My colleagues may wonder how this is possible, and they may question my facts. But as hard as this may be to believe, it is true. For example, the State of Missouri, which currently receives a rate of return of 91 percent, would have received an increased rate of return of 95 percent immediately and then throughout the reauthorization. Under the substitute amendment before us, Missouri will go from a rate of return of 91 percent to 99 percent immediately.

Despite Missouri's good fortune, five States would continue to linger at the bottom of the barrel for 4 years. In the fifth year, at least theoretically, these States would increase their rates of return to 92 percent, a modest increase of 1.5 percent over current law; 1.5 percent when other States enjoy a rate of return of over 200 percent, in one case almost 530 percent, in that final year. They say that beggars can't be choosers, but this legislation shouldn't be passed solely to prove that point. States like Arizona, California, and Texas should not be in the position of begging for their fair share of contributions to the highway trust fund.

I fully recognize that during the years when the Federal Government was building the interstate system, a redistribution of funding between the States may have made sense. Clearly, it would have been very difficult for the State of Montana, for example, with fewer than a million people, to pay the full cost of building its share of the intestate system. But that era is over. Congress declared the construction of the interstate system complete in 1991. Yet here we are, almost 15 years later, and donor States are still expected to agree to the redistribution of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to other States regardless of the already enormous transportation needs of donor States.

Let me be clear. Today, the need is in the highest growth States, which face some of this Nation's toughest transportation challenges. According to the most recent Census Bureau projections, Florida, Texas, and Arizona, all super-donor States receiving the minimum rate of return, will be among the five fastest-growing States over the next 25 years. Yet the donee States, many with shrinking populations, continue to receive growing subsidies from donor States. Meanwhile, States like Florida, Texas, and Arizona, and others including Colorado and Indiana, would be held for no apparent reason at the bottom. Other States, including Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia also would continue to get shortchanged. This is not the right approach, it is unfair, and we should do everything we can to ensure that any bill voted off this floor is more equitable for all States.

Now, I am sure we will hear about the great transportation needs of the States that receive more funds than they contribute. And I have no doubt that those States do, in fact, have significant needs. But how was it determined that California, for example, should have an average of $260 million per year of its funding redistributed as the EPW- reported bill would direct? Why aren't California's transportation needs as worthy of receiving the same percentage of Federal funds as provided to meet the transportation needs of a State like New York, for example, which is scheduled to receive a rate of return of 111 percent, or an average of over $140 million per year more than it contributes. This significant rate of return isn't the product of savvy investment. It is a guaranteed rate of return well above 100 percent that is built on the backs of donor States.

Why should a State like Alaska receive a rate of return in 2009 of almost 530 percent when it currently already receives a return of 500 percent? Why should Montana receive a rate of return of almost 228 percent, or Vermont a rate of over 212 percent? These figures defy any reasonable explanation other than the following: This bill is less about the integrity of our Nation's transportation system than it is about maximizing the amount of money going to some States at the expense of others.

I support a long-term reauthorization of our Nation's surface transportation programs and I understand the vital nature of this funding to our States. But before we take action on this bill, I urge my colleagues to start asking questions and to take seriously the consequences of increasing the size of this bill beyond the $284 billion level and of perpetuating the inequitable distribution of funds under this legislation.

Mr. President, after more than 5 months of work, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, and Salazar in introducing the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. This bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform legislation is designed to fix our Nation's broken immigration system. This landmark legislation would bring common sense to the current system and promote our national security interests. I am equally pleased by the effort of Congressmen Kolbe, Flake, and Gutierrez who are introducing the House companion bill.

While in previous years we worked independently on immigration reform legislation, we are coming together today to introduce what we believe is groundbreaking, comprehensive legislation. Over a year ago, the President laid out a framework for what comprehensive immigration reform should look like. We have used the President's framework to craft this package and I applaud the President for his leadership on this issue.

The simple fact is that America's immigration system is broken. Recent vigilante activities along the southwestern border have shown that the current situation is not sustainable. Americans are frustrated with our lack of border security and our inability to control illegal immigration. We have spent billions of dollars on border enforcement. We have sent more, but still not enough, Federal agents to the border equipped with sophisticated technology. We have worked to harden the border in key places. And yet, illegal immigration continues.

I would like to mention some startling statistics that demonstrate the critical need for immigration reform. I think the numbers speak for themselves: Over 300 people died last year trying to cross the border; about 200 of those deaths occurred in Arizona's desert. Last year 1.1 million illegal immigrants were caught by the Border Patrol in 2004. Fifty-one percent of those were caught in Arizona. The Border Patrol is currently apprehending over 1,000 undocumented immigrants a day in Arizona. According to the FBI, an increasing number of these individuals are OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, from ``countries of interest.''

Homeland security is our Nation's number one priority, and this legislation includes numerous provisions that together will make our nation more secure. This bill includes provisions to strengthen border security, both on our side of the border and throughout this hemisphere. Through the establishment of a new electronic employment verification system, the bill will create a more secure mechanism to better enforce our nation's immigration laws within our borders. Additionally, the bill enhances the authority of the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security to conduct random audits to ensure that employers are holding up their end of the bargain. And if they aren't, they face double fines.

Make no mistake, this is not an amnesty bill. We are not here to reward law-breakers, and any accusations to the contrary are patently untrue. This bill recognizes the problems inherent in the current system and provides a logical and effective means to address these problems. The reality is, there are an estimated million undocumented people living and working in this country. It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented, and if we did, it would ground our Nation's economy to a halt. These millions of people are working. Aliens will not come forward to simply ``report and deport.'' We have a national interest in identifying these individuals, incentivizing them to come forward out of the shadows, go through security background checks, pay back taxes, pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status. Anyone who thinks this goal can be achieved without providing an eventual path to a permanent legal status is not serious about solving this problem.

Part of the failure of the existing system is its inability to provide sufficient legal channels to pair willing workers with willing employers. This bill establishes a new market-based temporary worker program so that when there is no U.S. worker to fill a job, employers will be able to hire willing and able foreign workers who have gone through security background checks, medical exams, and paid a fee for their visa. And, by doing away with outdated numerical caps on this program, this bill recognizes that the needs of the U.S. economy are constantly in flux, and our immigration system must match those needs.

I don't believe there is another issue that is more important to our Nation than immigration reform. For far too long, our Nation's broken immigration laws have gone unreformed, leaving Americans vulnerable. We can no longer afford to delay reform.

The complex and difficult problems associated with immigration reform will not be solved overnight, but they are among the most difficult challenges facing our Nation today. That is why it is so important that the President shares our commitment to comprehensive reform. Together with the President, I am committed to this process and remain very hopeful that we will succeed.

I want to especially express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and his staff for their sincere commitment to this critical issue. Also, the contributions to the bill as recommended by Senator Brownback have been invaluable to this effort. I would also like to thank Senator Lugar, who allowed us to incorporate critical international border enforcement provisions from his legislation, the North American Cooperative Security Act.

Through the collective efforts of a wide range of bipartisan interests in both Houses of Congress, not to mention immigration advocacy groups, representatives of our Nation's businesses, and several labor unions, this comprehensive legislation provides a meaningful direction for how our immigration system should be reformed, and our border security strengthened.

I look forward to working with all interested parties in the important and necessary effort to once and for all reform our broken immigration system.

Mr. President, after more than 5 months of work, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, and Salazar in introducing the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. This bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform legislation is designed to fix our Nation's broken immigration system. This landmark legislation would bring common sense to the current system and promote our national security interests. I am equally pleased by the effort of Congressmen Kolbe, Flake, and Gutierrez who are introducing the House companion bill.

While in previous years we worked independently on immigration reform legislation, we are coming together today to introduce what we believe is groundbreaking, comprehensive legislation. Over a year ago, the President laid out a framework for what comprehensive immigration reform should look like. We have used the President's framework to craft this package and I applaud the President for his leadership on this issue.

The simple fact is that America's immigration system is broken. Recent vigilante activities along the southwestern border have shown that the current situation is not sustainable. Americans are frustrated with our lack of border security and our inability to control illegal immigration. We have spent billions of dollars on border enforcement. We have sent more, but still not enough, Federal agents to the border equipped with sophisticated technology. We have worked to harden the border in key places. And yet, illegal immigration continues.

I would like to mention some startling statistics that demonstrate the critical need for immigration reform. I think the numbers speak for themselves: Over 300 people died last year trying to cross the border; about 200 of those deaths occurred in Arizona's desert. Last year 1.1 million illegal immigrants were caught by the Border Patrol in 2004. Fifty-one percent of those were caught in Arizona. The Border Patrol is currently apprehending over 1,000 undocumented immigrants a day in Arizona. According to the FBI, an increasing number of these individuals are OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, from ``countries of interest.''

Homeland security is our Nation's number one priority, and this legislation includes numerous provisions that together will make our nation more secure. This bill includes provisions to strengthen border security, both on our side of the border and throughout this hemisphere. Through the establishment of a new electronic employment verification system, the bill will create a more secure mechanism to better enforce our nation's immigration laws within our borders. Additionally, the bill enhances the authority of the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security to conduct random audits to ensure that employers are holding up their end of the bargain. And if they aren't, they face double fines.

Make no mistake, this is not an amnesty bill. We are not here to reward law-breakers, and any accusations to the contrary are patently untrue. This bill recognizes the problems inherent in the current system and provides a logical and effective means to address these problems. The reality is, there are an estimated million undocumented people living and working in this country. It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented, and if we did, it would ground our Nation's economy to a halt. These millions of people are working. Aliens will not come forward to simply ``report and deport.'' We have a national interest in identifying these individuals, incentivizing them to come forward out of the shadows, go through security background checks, pay back taxes, pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status. Anyone who thinks this goal can be achieved without providing an eventual path to a permanent legal status is not serious about solving this problem.

Part of the failure of the existing system is its inability to provide sufficient legal channels to pair willing workers with willing employers. This bill establishes a new market-based temporary worker program so that when there is no U.S. worker to fill a job, employers will be able to hire willing and able foreign workers who have gone through security background checks, medical exams, and paid a fee for their visa. And, by doing away with outdated numerical caps on this program, this bill recognizes that the needs of the U.S. economy are constantly in flux, and our immigration system must match those needs.

I don't believe there is another issue that is more important to our Nation than immigration reform. For far too long, our Nation's broken immigration laws have gone unreformed, leaving Americans vulnerable. We can no longer afford to delay reform.

The complex and difficult problems associated with immigration reform will not be solved overnight, but they are among the most difficult challenges facing our Nation today. That is why it is so important that the President shares our commitment to comprehensive reform. Together with the President, I am committed to this process and remain very hopeful that we will succeed.

I want to especially express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and his staff for their sincere commitment to this critical issue. Also, the contributions to the bill as recommended by Senator Brownback have been invaluable to this effort. I would also like to thank Senator Lugar, who allowed us to incorporate critical international border enforcement provisions from his legislation, the North American Cooperative Security Act.

Through the collective efforts of a wide range of bipartisan interests in both Houses of Congress, not to mention immigration advocacy groups, representatives of our Nation's businesses, and several labor unions, this comprehensive legislation provides a meaningful direction for how our immigration system should be reformed, and our border security strengthened.

I look forward to working with all interested parties in the important and necessary effort to once and for all reform our broken immigration system.

Mr. President, when the Senate debated this bill a few weeks

ago, I asked my colleagues a simple question. What is the purpose of an emergency appropriations bill? The purpose, it seems to me, is to fund unexpected priorities--emergencies that simply cannot wait for the normal budget process. The conference report largely fulfills that purpose. It covers unexpected costs associated with the war on terror, tsunami relief, and national security priorities, including funding for our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly support funding in these areas.

But that is not all it does, Mr. President. This conference report has also served as a magnet for non-emergency spending and includes a host of earmarks. Let me be clear: I support this conference report because of the critical resources it provides for our troops and for our other emergency priorities, including tsunami relief. But at the same time I am deeply disturbed that the Congress isn't exhibiting restraint. Knowing that this conference report was a ``must pass'' piece of legislation, we have once again loaded it with unrelated provisions. Let me remind my colleagues that we are experiencing enormous budget deficits. At some point, we will have to embrace some degree of fiscal responsibility.

We should start with this emergency supplemental. The scope of emergency appropriations has traditionally been limited, and for good reason. We already have a proper budget and appropriations process. We don't need another. The proper process is supposed to allow Congress to meet Federal responsibilities while closely monitoring the effect our spending has on the budget deficit and the national debt. But appropriations that are designated as ``emergency'' do not count against the discretionary budget ceilings that we ourselves set. They add to costs incurred by the government and cause the current budget deficit to grow. With enactment of this measure, supplemental military spending alone since September 11, 2001, will top $200 billion. I am not questioning funding the war on terror; but I am questioning the unnecessary add-ons.

With respect to the substance of this conference report, I am pleased that it will provide the necessary resources to our troops as well as additional funds for our homeland security needs. It increases veterans benefit levels and expands eligibility, and provides higher benefits to family members of those killed in military service. This foreign affairs provisions of the conference report are remarkably, and commendably, free of pork. As one who supports ensuring that every taxpayer dollar counts, I commend my colleagues for their restraint in this area while meeting the President's request for funding for the victims of the South East Asian tsunami.

Unfortunately, this conference report also includes some unnecessary provisions, examples of which I will give in just a moment. I fully recognize that it isn't only the fault of the appropriators that the Congress has been forced into this new pattern of adopting emergency appropriations measures. Overly partisan politics has largely prevented us from following the regular legislative order, and that fact must change.

I would ask my colleagues whether they believe the following examples--just a select few from this conference report--constitute ``emergency spending'': $2,000,000 to upgrade the chemistry laboratories at Drew University in New Jersey. According to its website, Drew University has a total enrollment of 2,600 students, operates with a $200,000,000 endowment, and draws more National Merit Scholars than many other top liberal arts colleges in the nation. A prestigious institution indeed, but I see no way in which funding for its chemistry labs is a critical national spending emergency; $500,000 for the Oral History of the Negotiated Settlement project at the University of Nevada-Reno; $2,000,000 to continue funding for the Southeast Regional Cooling, Heating and Power and Biofuel Application Center in Mississippi; $4,000,000 to payoff debt at the Fire Sciences Academy in Elko, Nevada; and $2,000,000 for the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences in Michigan.

Additionally, notwithstanding Senate rules against legislating on an appropriations bill, the legislation before us today contains plenty of policy-related, non-appropriations language. For example: The conference report directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow oil and gas exploration underneath the Gulf Island National Seashore, a protected National Park in Mississippi. This changes current Federal policy disallowing such exploration; a line-item in the conference resolution blocks the EPA from revising how it collects fees for the registration of pesticides. For several years, similar language has been routinely added to VA-HUD/EPA appropriations legislation. Now this provision has found a new home in the emergency spending bill; it authorizes the Bureau or Reclamation to study the viability of establishing a sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in the Rio Grande River; it directs the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the Indiana Harbor and Canal disposal project; and California lawmakers have seen to it that this bill provides funds for San Gabriel Basin restoration.

Mr. President, we simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. Let's be clear about what we are doing. The Government is running a deficit because it is spending more than it takes in. So each one of the earmarks in this bill, we are borrowing money--and saddling future generations of Americans with unnecessary debt. If we had no choice but to act in this way, this might be, a understandable, temporary method of budgeting. But the fact is that we do have a choice.

At a conference in February, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this:

If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for

deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO's long-term

budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do

nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more

than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half

times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both

unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the

longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and

the less transition time we will have.

Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future generations of Americans?

Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that:

(T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one

certainty is that (the resolution of this situation will

require difficult choices and that the future performance of

the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be

easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources

or raising financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to

determine how best to address the competing claims.

It falls on the Congress, my friends. The head of the U.S. Government's chief watch-dog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree--we are in real trouble.

Dire predictions, and what are we doing about it? Are we restraining our spending? No, of course not. We are at it again, finding new and ever more creative ways to funnel money to the special interests. We have to face the facts. Congress cannot continue to spend taxpayer dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people deserve better.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 in order to bring the relocation process to an orderly conclusion. I look forward to working with all affected parties on this bill and will work with them to ensure it takes into account their views. This bill will phase out the Navajo-Hopi relocation program by September 30, 2008, and at that time transfer all remaining responsibilities to the Secretary of the Interior. It provides a time certain for eligible Navajo and Hopi individuals to apply for and receive relocation benefits and after that time the Federal Government will no longer be obligated to provide replacement homes for those individuals. Under this legislation, the funds that would have been used to provide replacement homes to such individuals will be held in trust by the Secretary for distribution to the individual or their heirs.

The Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 was enacted to resolve longstanding disputes that have divided the Navajo and Hopi Indian Tribes for over a century. The origins of this dispute can be traced directly to the creation of the 1882 reservation for the Hopi Tribe and the subsequent creation of the 1934 Navajo Reservation. At the time these reservations were established, Navajo families lived within the lands set aside for the Hopi Tribe and Hopi families lived within lands set aside for the Navajo Nation and tensions between the two tribes continued to heighten. In 1958 Congress, in an effort to resolve this dispute, passed legislation that authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title the 1882 reservation and to their respective claims and rights. That legislation gave rise to over 35 years of continuous litigation between the tribes in an effort to resolve their respective rights and claims to the land.

In 1974, Congress enacted the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act which established Navajo and Hopi negotiating teams under the auspices of a Federal mediator to negotiate a settlement to the 1882 reservation land dispute. The act also authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title the 1934 reservation and to file claims for damages arising out of the dispute against each other or the United States. The act also established a three member Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission to oversee the relocation of members of the Navajo Nation who were living on lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe and members of the Hopi Tribe who were living on lands partitioned to the Navajo Nation. Since its establishment, the relocation program has been an extremely difficult and contentious process.

When this program was first established, the estimated cost of providing relocation benefits to approximately 6,000 Navajos estimated eligible for relocation was roughly $40 million. These figures woefully underestimated the number of families impacted by relocation and the tremendous delays that have plagued this program. By 1996, the United States had expended over $350 million to relocate more than 11,000 Navajo and Hopi tribal members. At that time, there remained over 640 eligible families who had never received relocation benefits and an additional 50 to 100 families who had never applied for relocation benefits. There were also over 130 eligibility appeals pending. Without question, the funding for this settlement has far exceeded the original cost estimates by more than 1000 percent. Since 1975, Congress has appropriated over $440 million for this program.

At its inception, the relocation program was intended to be a temporary program that was established to fulfill a specific mission and we cannot continue to fund it with no end in sight. Moreover, I am convinced that our current Federal budgetary pressures require us to ensure that the Navajo-Hopi relocation housing program is brought to an orderly and certain conclusion. It is for that reason that I am introducing the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act Amendments of 2005. This legislation will phase out the Navajo-Hopi Indian relocation program by September 30, 2008, and transfer the remaining responsibilities under the act to the Secretary of the Interior. Under the bill, the relocation commissioner shall transfer to the Secretary such funds as are necessary to construct replacement homes for any eligible head of household who has left the Hopi partitioned land but who has not received a replacement home by September 30, 2008. These funds will be held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for distribution to such individual or their heirs. In addition, the bill includes provisions establishing an expedited procedure for handling appeals of final eligibility determinations.

This bill is similar to the legislation I introduced during the 104th Congress. S. 1111 proposed to phase out the relocation program by September 2001. A hearing was held on that bill and comments were received from the affected parties. At that time, many of the witnesses stated that with limited exception, the program could come to a resolution under the time line proposed in S. 1111. Opposition to passing the legislation was based in part on the incomplete process of approval of the accommodation lease agreements between the Hopi Tribe and individual Navajos who were still living on the Hopi partitioned lands. That action has since occurred and the Commission has had eight additional years to conclude its responsibilities. Therefore, it is now time for the Congress to act to bring the long and difficult process of relocation to an orderly conclusion.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 in order to bring the relocation process to an orderly conclusion. I look forward to working with all affected parties on this bill and will work with them to ensure it takes into account their views. This bill will phase out the Navajo-Hopi relocation program by September 30, 2008, and at that time transfer all remaining responsibilities to the Secretary of the Interior. It provides a time certain for eligible Navajo and Hopi individuals to apply for and receive relocation benefits and after that time the Federal Government will no longer be obligated to provide replacement homes for those individuals. Under this legislation, the funds that would have been used to provide replacement homes to such individuals will be held in trust by the Secretary for distribution to the individual or their heirs.

The Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 was enacted to resolve longstanding disputes that have divided the Navajo and Hopi Indian Tribes for over a century. The origins of this dispute can be traced directly to the creation of the 1882 reservation for the Hopi Tribe and the subsequent creation of the 1934 Navajo Reservation. At the time these reservations were established, Navajo families lived within the lands set aside for the Hopi Tribe and Hopi families lived within lands set aside for the Navajo Nation and tensions between the two tribes continued to heighten. In 1958 Congress, in an effort to resolve this dispute, passed legislation that authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title the 1882 reservation and to their respective claims and rights. That legislation gave rise to over 35 years of continuous litigation between the tribes in an effort to resolve their respective rights and claims to the land.

In 1974, Congress enacted the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act which established Navajo and Hopi negotiating teams under the auspices of a Federal mediator to negotiate a settlement to the 1882 reservation land dispute. The act also authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title the 1934 reservation and to file claims for damages arising out of the dispute against each other or the United States. The act also established a three member Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Commission to oversee the relocation of members of the Navajo Nation who were living on lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe and members of the Hopi Tribe who were living on lands partitioned to the Navajo Nation. Since its establishment, the relocation program has been an extremely difficult and contentious process.

When this program was first established, the estimated cost of providing relocation benefits to approximately 6,000 Navajos estimated eligible for relocation was roughly $40 million. These figures woefully underestimated the number of families impacted by relocation and the tremendous delays that have plagued this program. By 1996, the United States had expended over $350 million to relocate more than 11,000 Navajo and Hopi tribal members. At that time, there remained over 640 eligible families who had never received relocation benefits and an additional 50 to 100 families who had never applied for relocation benefits. There were also over 130 eligibility appeals pending. Without question, the funding for this settlement has far exceeded the original cost estimates by more than 1000 percent. Since 1975, Congress has appropriated over $440 million for this program.

At its inception, the relocation program was intended to be a temporary program that was established to fulfill a specific mission and we cannot continue to fund it with no end in sight. Moreover, I am convinced that our current Federal budgetary pressures require us to ensure that the Navajo-Hopi relocation housing program is brought to an orderly and certain conclusion. It is for that reason that I am introducing the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act Amendments of 2005. This legislation will phase out the Navajo-Hopi Indian relocation program by September 30, 2008, and transfer the remaining responsibilities under the act to the Secretary of the Interior. Under the bill, the relocation commissioner shall transfer to the Secretary such funds as are necessary to construct replacement homes for any eligible head of household who has left the Hopi partitioned land but who has not received a replacement home by September 30, 2008. These funds will be held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for distribution to such individual or their heirs. In addition, the bill includes provisions establishing an expedited procedure for handling appeals of final eligibility determinations.

This bill is similar to the legislation I introduced during the 104th Congress. S. 1111 proposed to phase out the relocation program by September 2001. A hearing was held on that bill and comments were received from the affected parties. At that time, many of the witnesses stated that with limited exception, the program could come to a resolution under the time line proposed in S. 1111. Opposition to passing the legislation was based in part on the incomplete process of approval of the accommodation lease agreements between the Hopi Tribe and individual Navajos who were still living on the Hopi partitioned lands. That action has since occurred and the Commission has had eight additional years to conclude its responsibilities. Therefore, it is now time for the Congress to act to bring the long and difficult process of relocation to an orderly conclusion.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Restoring Safety to Indian Women Act'' and I look forward to working with the Committee on the Judiciary to ensure that the provisions of this bill are given consideration, particularly as the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act moves forward. I also wish to thank Senator Byron Dorgan for co-sponsoring this legislation and for his dedication to addressing the health and welfare needs of Indian tribes.

This legislation creates a new Federal criminal offense authorizing Federal prosecutors to charge repeat domestic violence offenders before they seriously injure or kill someone and to use tribal court convictions for domestic violence for that purpose. It authorizes the creation of tribal criminal history databases to document these convictions and protection orders for use by all law enforcement. The bill authorizes BIA and tribal officers to make arrests for domestic violence assaults committed outside of their presence and would authorizes a comprehensive study of domestic violence in Indian Country to determine its impact to Indian tribes.

The 1994 Violence Against Women Act has had a tremendous impact on raising the national awareness of domestic violence and providing communities, including Indian tribes, the resources to respond to the devastating impact of domestic violence. National studies show that one in four women are victims of domestic violence. Since 1999, the Department of Justice has issued various studies which report that Indian women experience the highest rates of domestic violence compared to all other groups in the United States. These reports state that one out of every three Indian women are victims of sexual assault; that from 1979 to 1992, homicide was the third leading cause of death of Indian females between the ages of 15 to 34 and that 75 percent of those deaths were committed by a family member or acquaintance. These are startling statistics that require our close examination and a better understanding of how to prevent and respond to domestic violence in Indian Country.

Domestic violence is a national problem and not one that is unique to Indian Country. Yet, due to the unique status of Indian tribes, there are obstacles faced by Indian tribal police, Federal investigators, tribal and Federal prosecutors and courts that impede their ability to respond to domestic violence in Indian Country. This bill is intended to remove these obstacles at all levels and to enhance the ability of each agency to respond to acts of domestic violence when they occur.

The division of criminal jurisdiction between Federal and tribal law enforcement and prosecutors working in Indian Country present challenges. For example, Federal prosecutors prosecute acts of domestic violence in Indian Country using the Assault or, unfortunately, the Murder statutes in the Major Crimes Act. These statutes require the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was disfigured, suffered a serious risk of death or was killed before these felony charges can be filed. Meanwhile, the research has shown that perpetrators of domestic violence become increasingly more violent over time. Under the existing statutory scheme, these perpetrators may escape felony charges until they seriously injure or kill someone.

This bill would create a new Federal offense aimed at the habitual domestic violence offender and allow tribal court convictions to count for purposes of Federal felony prosecution when the perpetrator has at least two separate Federal, State or tribal convictions for crimes involving assault, sexual abuse or a violent felony against a spouse or intimate partner. This provision is similar to many state laws that apply a felony penalty to an individual who commits multiple offenses. It will empower Indian tribal prosecutors and courts to document domestic violence cases at the local level and give federal prosecutors the ability to intervene in the cycle of violence by charging repeat offenders before they seriously injure or kill someone.

The bill would also encourage the use of existing grants authorized by the Violence Against Women Act to create tribal criminal history databases for use by Indian tribes and tribal, State and Federal law enforcement agencies to document final convictions, stay away orders and orders of protection issued by tribal courts. As I understand it, no such database exists today. This database would be used solely as a law enforcement and court tracking tool. It would enable tribal, State and Federal law enforcement officers to determine whether an individual is a habitual domestic violence offender and therefore subject to the felony crime described above. It also would enhance the implementation of the criminal provisions that already exist in the Violence Against Women Act.

All manner of law enforcement agencies report that responding to domestic violence disturbances are among the most dangerous situations that a police officer faces. Therefore, many States have enacted immediate arrest or removal policies that enable responding officers to diffuse these dangerous situations. Currently, the primary law enforcement authority for Indian tribes, the BIA police, are only authorized to make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in Indian Country if the offense is committed in the presence of the officer or the offense is a felony. This legislation would expand the authority of the BIA police, and tribal police agencies that derive their arrest authority by contract with the BIA, to make an arrest without a warrant for a domestic violence offense when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested committed the offense. This arrest authority will enable a responding officer to diffuse the dangerous situation by arresting the perpetrator. This will go a long way toward improving public safety for both the officer and the domestic violence victim.

Finally, while the national data on the rates of violence affecting Indian women are astounding, we do not know the full extent to which Indian women residing in Indian Country are impacted by domestic violence or the impact of domestic violence on Indian tribes. For example, we know that nationally, domestic violence costs $4.1 billion each year for direct medical and mental health services and in my own State of Arizona, last year, police received approximately 100,000 domestic violence calls, but we do not know the extent to which tribal prevention programs, law enforcement, court or medical intervention resources are similarly impacted. Therefore, this bill would require that a comprehensive study be done on the scope of the domestic violence problem in Indian Country.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Indian Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee to ensure that these statistics become a record of the past. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Restoring Safety to Indian Women Act'' and I look forward to working with the Committee on the Judiciary to ensure that the provisions of this bill are given consideration, particularly as the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act moves forward. I also wish to thank Senator Byron Dorgan for co-sponsoring this legislation and for his dedication to addressing the health and welfare needs of Indian tribes.

This legislation creates a new Federal criminal offense authorizing Federal prosecutors to charge repeat domestic violence offenders before they seriously injure or kill someone and to use tribal court convictions for domestic violence for that purpose. It authorizes the creation of tribal criminal history databases to document these convictions and protection orders for use by all law enforcement. The bill authorizes BIA and tribal officers to make arrests for domestic violence assaults committed outside of their presence and would authorizes a comprehensive study of domestic violence in Indian Country to determine its impact to Indian tribes.

The 1994 Violence Against Women Act has had a tremendous impact on raising the national awareness of domestic violence and providing communities, including Indian tribes, the resources to respond to the devastating impact of domestic violence. National studies show that one in four women are victims of domestic violence. Since 1999, the Department of Justice has issued various studies which report that Indian women experience the highest rates of domestic violence compared to all other groups in the United States. These reports state that one out of every three Indian women are victims of sexual assault; that from 1979 to 1992, homicide was the third leading cause of death of Indian females between the ages of 15 to 34 and that 75 percent of those deaths were committed by a family member or acquaintance. These are startling statistics that require our close examination and a better understanding of how to prevent and respond to domestic violence in Indian Country.

Domestic violence is a national problem and not one that is unique to Indian Country. Yet, due to the unique status of Indian tribes, there are obstacles faced by Indian tribal police, Federal investigators, tribal and Federal prosecutors and courts that impede their ability to respond to domestic violence in Indian Country. This bill is intended to remove these obstacles at all levels and to enhance the ability of each agency to respond to acts of domestic violence when they occur.

The division of criminal jurisdiction between Federal and tribal law enforcement and prosecutors working in Indian Country present challenges. For example, Federal prosecutors prosecute acts of domestic violence in Indian Country using the Assault or, unfortunately, the Murder statutes in the Major Crimes Act. These statutes require the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was disfigured, suffered a serious risk of death or was killed before these felony charges can be filed. Meanwhile, the research has shown that perpetrators of domestic violence become increasingly more violent over time. Under the existing statutory scheme, these perpetrators may escape felony charges until they seriously injure or kill someone.

This bill would create a new Federal offense aimed at the habitual domestic violence offender and allow tribal court convictions to count for purposes of Federal felony prosecution when the perpetrator has at least two separate Federal, State or tribal convictions for crimes involving assault, sexual abuse or a violent felony against a spouse or intimate partner. This provision is similar to many state laws that apply a felony penalty to an individual who commits multiple offenses. It will empower Indian tribal prosecutors and courts to document domestic violence cases at the local level and give federal prosecutors the ability to intervene in the cycle of violence by charging repeat offenders before they seriously injure or kill someone.

The bill would also encourage the use of existing grants authorized by the Violence Against Women Act to create tribal criminal history databases for use by Indian tribes and tribal, State and Federal law enforcement agencies to document final convictions, stay away orders and orders of protection issued by tribal courts. As I understand it, no such database exists today. This database would be used solely as a law enforcement and court tracking tool. It would enable tribal, State and Federal law enforcement officers to determine whether an individual is a habitual domestic violence offender and therefore subject to the felony crime described above. It also would enhance the implementation of the criminal provisions that already exist in the Violence Against Women Act.

All manner of law enforcement agencies report that responding to domestic violence disturbances are among the most dangerous situations that a police officer faces. Therefore, many States have enacted immediate arrest or removal policies that enable responding officers to diffuse these dangerous situations. Currently, the primary law enforcement authority for Indian tribes, the BIA police, are only authorized to make an arrest without a warrant for an offense committed in Indian Country if the offense is committed in the presence of the officer or the offense is a felony. This legislation would expand the authority of the BIA police, and tribal police agencies that derive their arrest authority by contract with the BIA, to make an arrest without a warrant for a domestic violence offense when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested committed the offense. This arrest authority will enable a responding officer to diffuse the dangerous situation by arresting the perpetrator. This will go a long way toward improving public safety for both the officer and the domestic violence victim.

Finally, while the national data on the rates of violence affecting Indian women are astounding, we do not know the full extent to which Indian women residing in Indian Country are impacted by domestic violence or the impact of domestic violence on Indian tribes. For example, we know that nationally, domestic violence costs $4.1 billion each year for direct medical and mental health services and in my own State of Arizona, last year, police received approximately 100,000 domestic violence calls, but we do not know the extent to which tribal prevention programs, law enforcement, court or medical intervention resources are similarly impacted. Therefore, this bill would require that a comprehensive study be done on the scope of the domestic violence problem in Indian Country.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Indian Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee to ensure that these statistics become a record of the past. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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