Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my strong support for the amendment by Senators Snowe and Wyden.

Less than 2 years ago, Congress passed a massive expansion of our Nation's entitlement system, the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, which added costly prescription drug coverage to the Medicare Program. At that time, we were told that the new benefit would cost an estimated $400 billion over 10 years a figure many of us believed to be far lower than the actual cost. Today, the same package is estimated to cost between $534 billion to $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Those costs can only be expected to grow further.

To add insult to injury, language was added to MMA which explicitly prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services from engaging in negotiations directly with drug companies. This language was included deliberately, even though other departments in the Federal Government and State governors, under the Medicaid Program, have similar authorities. Prohibiting the Secretary of Health and Human Services from engaging in such negotiations is an offense against the American taxpayer.

Earlier this year, I joined Senators Snowe and Wyden in introducing legislation which would amend the MMA and allow the Secretary to negotiate lower drug prices. The amendment we are debating now calls for those savings to be used for debt reduction a worthy goal given the massive burden we added to future generations through the passage of

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This bill would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to conduct a joint study to determine the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. A companion bill is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Representative Kolbe and rest of the Arizona delegation.

Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated 20 national trails. This legislation is the first step in the process of national trail designation for the Arizona Trail. If the study concludes that designating the Arizona Trail as a part of the national trail system if feasible, subsequent legislation can be introduced to designate the Arizona Trail as either a National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail.

The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States.

For the past 10 years, over 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have worked to form a partnership to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail would help streamline the management of the Trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.

The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the State, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. The Arizona Trail extends through seven ecological life zones including such legendary landmarks as the Sonoran Desert and the Grand Canyon. It connects the unique lowland desert flora and fauna in Saguaro National Park and the pine-covered San Francisco Peaks, Arizona's highest mountains at 12,633 feet in elevation. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day. The Trail also takes travelers through ranching, mining, agricultural, and developed urban areas, as well as remote and pristine wildlands.

With over 700 miles of the 800-mile trail already completed, the Arizona

Trail is a boon to recreationists. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross-country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.

I commend the Arizona Trail Association for taking the lead in building a coalition of partners to bring the Arizona Trail from its inception to a nearly completed, multiple-use, non-motorized, long- distance trail. Trail enthusiasts look forward to the completion of the Arizona Trail. Its designation as a national trail would help to protect the natural, cultural, and historic resources it contains for the public to use and enjoy.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility Study Act. This bill would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to conduct a joint study to determine the feasibility of designating the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail. A companion bill is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Representative Kolbe and rest of the Arizona delegation.

Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, Congress has designated 20 national trails. This legislation is the first step in the process of national trail designation for the Arizona Trail. If the study concludes that designating the Arizona Trail as a part of the national trail system if feasible, subsequent legislation can be introduced to designate the Arizona Trail as either a National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail.

The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. The Trail begins at the Coronado National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States.

For the past 10 years, over 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as community and business organizations, have worked to form a partnership to create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Designating the Arizona Trail as a national trail would help streamline the management of the Trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is preserved for future generations to enjoy.

The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of ecological diversity in the State, and incorporates a host of existing trails into one continuous trail. The Arizona Trail extends through seven ecological life zones including such legendary landmarks as the Sonoran Desert and the Grand Canyon. It connects the unique lowland desert flora and fauna in Saguaro National Park and the pine-covered San Francisco Peaks, Arizona's highest mountains at 12,633 feet in elevation. In fact, the Trail route is so topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert to Alpine forests in one day. The Trail also takes travelers through ranching, mining, agricultural, and developed urban areas, as well as remote and pristine wildlands.

With over 700 miles of the 800-mile trail already completed, the Arizona

Trail is a boon to recreationists. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., the designation of the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic or National Historic Trail would ensure the preservation of a corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross-country skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.

I commend the Arizona Trail Association for taking the lead in building a coalition of partners to bring the Arizona Trail from its inception to a nearly completed, multiple-use, non-motorized, long- distance trail. Trail enthusiasts look forward to the completion of the Arizona Trail. Its designation as a national trail would help to protect the natural, cultural, and historic resources it contains for the public to use and enjoy.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Rick Renzi, in introducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land management study for the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources.

For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best protected from future development under management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would help to resolve the question of future management and whether expanding the monument's boundaries could compliment current public and multiple-use needs.

The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area.

Mr. President, this legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Rick Renzi, in introducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land management study for the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources.

For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best protected from future development under management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would help to resolve the question of future management and whether expanding the monument's boundaries could compliment current public and multiple-use needs.

The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area.

Mr. President, this legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005 to amend a variety of Federal statutes affecting Indian tribes and Indian people. This Act contains nineteen provisions, including technical amendments to several laws, extensions of expiring authorizations, and provisions relating to particular Indian tribes, and certain Native American programs.

Section 101, amends the Indian finance act of 1974 to clarify that non-profit tribal entities are eligible for the BIA Loan Guaranty program. It also raises the limit on the amount of loans to $1.5 billion from $500 million.

Section 102 extends the authorization for the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act to through fiscal year 2010.

Section 103 extends the Indian Tribal Justice Act for three more years.

Section 104 cures a problem specific to New Mexico and the 1924 Indian Pueblo Lands Act. Recently, the New Mexico State Court of Appeals ruled that a change from Indian to non-Indian title for a parcel of land within a Pueblo land grant area eliminated that parcel's status as ``Indian Country.'' This ruling created a jurisdictional void for criminal acts occurring on

land within the original Pueblo land grant once its' title has changed. Consistent with existing law, this amendment clarifies that the state maintains jurisdiction over non-Indians, the tribe has jurisdiction over Indians and its members, and the federal government has jurisdiction pursuant to the Major Crimes Act. This amendment does not expand Indian civil jurisdiction and only applies to criminal jurisdiction. I understand that it is uniformly support by all affected parties.

Section 105, conveys approximately 1290 acres of the Lock and Dam #3 lands to the Prairie Island Tribe. The provision prohibits gaming or structures for human habitation on the conveyed lands.

Section 106 is a technical amendment to allow binding arbitration in all contracts and not just leases on the Gila River Indian Community reservation.

Section 107 conveys several parcels of land in the State of Washington to be held in trust for Puyallup Indian Tribes.

Section 108 amends Native American graves Protection and Repatriation Act by clarifying that the term ``Native American'' refers to a member of a tribe, a people, or a culture that is or was indigenous to the United States.

Section 109, the amends the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe's water rights settlement act to permit the expenditure of six percent of the average market value of the Fund over three years.

Section 110, the Washoe Tribes Lake Tahoe Access Act, corrects the 1990 settlement and includes 24.3 acres of land near Lake Tahoe for the Tribes. The amendment does not affect the number of acres conveyed to the Tribe in the original settlement.

Section 111 amends the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. A major source of tribal and individual income comes from the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts, but millions of dollars are diverted each year from these artists and tribes by those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. Enforcing the criminal law that prohibits the sale of Indian arts and crafts misrepresented as an Indian product is often stalled by the other responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity and violent crimes on Indian lands. This amendment supplements the existing federal investigative authority by authorizing other federal investigative bodies, such as the BIA, in addition to the FBI, to investigate these offenses.

Section 112, the Colorado River Indian Reservation Boundary Correction Act, corrects the south boundary of the Reservation by reestablishing the boundary as it was delineated in the original survey.

Section 113, reauthorizes the Native American Programs Act of 1974 and establishes the Inter-Departmental Council of Native American Affairs.

Section 114 amends the Native Hawaiian Education Act to include research and education activities relating to Native Hawaiian law.

Section 121 amends the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Act to include the registration of Indian students in the Spring semester.

Section 122, the Native Nations Leadership, Management and Policy Act of 2005 authorizes funding for leadership training, strategic and organizational development, and research and policy analysis to assist American Indian nations to achieve effective self-governance and sustainable economic development. This provision renews authorized funding for NNI's programs for a period of 10 years, beginning in fiscal year 2007. Dedicated funding for NNI is necessary to ensure the continuation of these important programs without further draining funds from the Udall Foundation's other educational activities.

Section 132 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a pilot program to enhance an Indian tribe's response to border activity. Some Indian tribes that inhabit land on or easily accessible to the United States and Canada or Mexico, bear extraordinary costs in responding to illegal immigration crossing and drug smuggling and almost always divert funds intended for local services to do so. While Federal and State law enforcement resources may supplement tribal efforts, tribal police, fire and emergency services provide the first and often only response because of their access to the border. A tribe's proximity to the border and its responsibility to the community for public safety and welfare, requires that they respond. This program would enhance tribal first responder capabilities, provide assistance for aerial and ground surveillance technologies, and communication capabilities, and facilitate coordination and cooperation with Federal, State, local and tribal governments in protecting the border. The Secretary may establish the selection criteria for participation in the program including the tribes' proximity to the border and the extent to which border crossing activity impacts existing tribal resources.

Section 201, Authorization of 99 year leases, amends Title 25 USC Section 415 providing for leases of restricted lands by adding several additional tribes to the list of tribes that have requested 99-year lease authority.

Section 202, Certification of rental proceeds, amends Title 25 USC Section 488 to permit actual rental proceeds from a lease to constitute the rental value of that land, and to satisfy the requirement for appraisal of that land.

Section 211, will permit the Navajo Nation's Sage Memorial Hospital to be considered a tribal contractor under the Indian Self- Determination Act, which will allow the hospital to obtain the benefits of coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act and secure VA drug discounts.

Section 221, amends the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 by correcting provisions relating to non-testamentary disposition, partition of highly fractionated Indian land, and Tribal probate codes.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005 to amend a variety of Federal statutes affecting Indian tribes and Indian people. This Act contains nineteen provisions, including technical amendments to several laws, extensions of expiring authorizations, and provisions relating to particular Indian tribes, and certain Native American programs.

Section 101, amends the Indian finance act of 1974 to clarify that non-profit tribal entities are eligible for the BIA Loan Guaranty program. It also raises the limit on the amount of loans to $1.5 billion from $500 million.

Section 102 extends the authorization for the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act to through fiscal year 2010.

Section 103 extends the Indian Tribal Justice Act for three more years.

Section 104 cures a problem specific to New Mexico and the 1924 Indian Pueblo Lands Act. Recently, the New Mexico State Court of Appeals ruled that a change from Indian to non-Indian title for a parcel of land within a Pueblo land grant area eliminated that parcel's status as ``Indian Country.'' This ruling created a jurisdictional void for criminal acts occurring on

land within the original Pueblo land grant once its' title has changed. Consistent with existing law, this amendment clarifies that the state maintains jurisdiction over non-Indians, the tribe has jurisdiction over Indians and its members, and the federal government has jurisdiction pursuant to the Major Crimes Act. This amendment does not expand Indian civil jurisdiction and only applies to criminal jurisdiction. I understand that it is uniformly support by all affected parties.

Section 105, conveys approximately 1290 acres of the Lock and Dam #3 lands to the Prairie Island Tribe. The provision prohibits gaming or structures for human habitation on the conveyed lands.

Section 106 is a technical amendment to allow binding arbitration in all contracts and not just leases on the Gila River Indian Community reservation.

Section 107 conveys several parcels of land in the State of Washington to be held in trust for Puyallup Indian Tribes.

Section 108 amends Native American graves Protection and Repatriation Act by clarifying that the term ``Native American'' refers to a member of a tribe, a people, or a culture that is or was indigenous to the United States.

Section 109, the amends the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe's water rights settlement act to permit the expenditure of six percent of the average market value of the Fund over three years.

Section 110, the Washoe Tribes Lake Tahoe Access Act, corrects the 1990 settlement and includes 24.3 acres of land near Lake Tahoe for the Tribes. The amendment does not affect the number of acres conveyed to the Tribe in the original settlement.

Section 111 amends the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. A major source of tribal and individual income comes from the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts, but millions of dollars are diverted each year from these artists and tribes by those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. Enforcing the criminal law that prohibits the sale of Indian arts and crafts misrepresented as an Indian product is often stalled by the other responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity and violent crimes on Indian lands. This amendment supplements the existing federal investigative authority by authorizing other federal investigative bodies, such as the BIA, in addition to the FBI, to investigate these offenses.

Section 112, the Colorado River Indian Reservation Boundary Correction Act, corrects the south boundary of the Reservation by reestablishing the boundary as it was delineated in the original survey.

Section 113, reauthorizes the Native American Programs Act of 1974 and establishes the Inter-Departmental Council of Native American Affairs.

Section 114 amends the Native Hawaiian Education Act to include research and education activities relating to Native Hawaiian law.

Section 121 amends the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Act to include the registration of Indian students in the Spring semester.

Section 122, the Native Nations Leadership, Management and Policy Act of 2005 authorizes funding for leadership training, strategic and organizational development, and research and policy analysis to assist American Indian nations to achieve effective self-governance and sustainable economic development. This provision renews authorized funding for NNI's programs for a period of 10 years, beginning in fiscal year 2007. Dedicated funding for NNI is necessary to ensure the continuation of these important programs without further draining funds from the Udall Foundation's other educational activities.

Section 132 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish a pilot program to enhance an Indian tribe's response to border activity. Some Indian tribes that inhabit land on or easily accessible to the United States and Canada or Mexico, bear extraordinary costs in responding to illegal immigration crossing and drug smuggling and almost always divert funds intended for local services to do so. While Federal and State law enforcement resources may supplement tribal efforts, tribal police, fire and emergency services provide the first and often only response because of their access to the border. A tribe's proximity to the border and its responsibility to the community for public safety and welfare, requires that they respond. This program would enhance tribal first responder capabilities, provide assistance for aerial and ground surveillance technologies, and communication capabilities, and facilitate coordination and cooperation with Federal, State, local and tribal governments in protecting the border. The Secretary may establish the selection criteria for participation in the program including the tribes' proximity to the border and the extent to which border crossing activity impacts existing tribal resources.

Section 201, Authorization of 99 year leases, amends Title 25 USC Section 415 providing for leases of restricted lands by adding several additional tribes to the list of tribes that have requested 99-year lease authority.

Section 202, Certification of rental proceeds, amends Title 25 USC Section 488 to permit actual rental proceeds from a lease to constitute the rental value of that land, and to satisfy the requirement for appraisal of that land.

Section 211, will permit the Navajo Nation's Sage Memorial Hospital to be considered a tribal contractor under the Indian Self- Determination Act, which will allow the hospital to obtain the benefits of coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act and secure VA drug discounts.

Section 221, amends the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 by correcting provisions relating to non-testamentary disposition, partition of highly fractionated Indian land, and Tribal probate codes.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, the recent ``Orange Revolution'' in Ukraine marked a huge victory for the advancement of democracy in the world. The Ukrainian people made clear that they would not stand idle as a corrupt regime sought to deny them their democratic rights. Now that the people of Ukraine have seized control of their destiny, the United States must stand ready to assist them as they do the hard work of consolidating democracy. The Jackson-Vanik amendment is, with respect to Ukraine, now anachronistic and inappropriate. Therefore, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would terminate it.

The bill would authorize the President to terminate the application of Jackson-Vanik, Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, to Ukraine. Ukraine would then be eligible to receive permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) tariff status in its trade with the United States. I am pleased to note that Representatives Hyde and Lantos will be introducing an identical bill in the House.

Beyond any benefits to our bilateral trading relationship, lifting Jackson-Vanik for Ukraine constitutes an important symbol of Ukraine's new democracy and its relationship with the United States. I led a delegation of four Senators and six representatives to Kiev last week; where we met with President Yuschenko, Prime Minister Tymoshenko, and students who led protests in Independence Square. I was struck by the great enthusiasm for democracy and freedom that has taken hold in Ukraine, and I wish the new leaders all the best a they begin the challenge of governing. I pledged to them that I would work toward the lifting of Jackson-Vanik on Ukraine, and today I am happy to take the first step toward that end.

Mr. President, the recent ``Orange Revolution'' in Ukraine marked a huge victory for the advancement of democracy in the world. The Ukrainian people made clear that they would not stand idle as a corrupt regime sought to deny them their democratic rights. Now that the people of Ukraine have seized control of their destiny, the United States must stand ready to assist them as they do the hard work of consolidating democracy. The Jackson-Vanik amendment is, with respect to Ukraine, now anachronistic and inappropriate. Therefore, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would terminate it.

The bill would authorize the President to terminate the application of Jackson-Vanik, Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, to Ukraine. Ukraine would then be eligible to receive permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) tariff status in its trade with the United States. I am pleased to note that Representatives Hyde and Lantos will be introducing an identical bill in the House.

Beyond any benefits to our bilateral trading relationship, lifting Jackson-Vanik for Ukraine constitutes an important symbol of Ukraine's new democracy and its relationship with the United States. I led a delegation of four Senators and six representatives to Kiev last week; where we met with President Yuschenko, Prime Minister Tymoshenko, and students who led protests in Independence Square. I was struck by the great enthusiasm for democracy and freedom that has taken hold in Ukraine, and I wish the new leaders all the best a they begin the challenge of governing. I pledged to them that I would work toward the lifting of Jackson-Vanik on Ukraine, and today I am happy to take the first step toward that end.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Localism in Broadcasting Reform Act of 2005.'' This legislation would reduce the license term for broadcasters from 8 years to 3 years, thereby requiring broadcasters to provide the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) with information every 3 years on why their license should be renewed. Prior to 1981, broadcast licenses were granted for a term of 3 years.

The bill would require the full Commission to review 5 percent of all license and renewal applications. Currently, the Media Bureau randomly audits 5 percent of all license renewal applications. The FCC first started an audit process back in the 1980s when the FCC changed its license renewal process from one where stations submitted evidence of ``public interest'' obligations compliance to one where stations self certify compliance, critics call it a ``post card renewal''. This section would take the audit process a step further by requiring the Commissioners to review the applications selected for audit rather than the Media Bureau.

The bill would command broadcasters to post on their Internet sites information detailing their commitment to local public affairs programming and children's programming. The bill also calls for the FCC to complete

its proceeding on whether public interest obligations should apply to broadcasters in the digital era.

To ensure that viewers or listeners can fully participate in a broadcaster's license renewal, the bill would codify the Commission's rule that a viewer or listener has standing to challenge a license if he demonstrates either that he resides in the station's service area or that he regularly listens or views the station and that such listening or viewing is not the result of transient contacts with the station.

Lastly, the bill would allow the Commission, during a license renewal proceeding, to review not only the performance of the station seeking renewal, but also the performance of all stations owned by the licensee seeking renewal. The current statute restricts the Commission's review only to that station seeking the renewal.

Last June, FCC Chairman Michael Powell and I challenged all local broadcast television and radio stations to provide their local communities with significant information on the local political issues facing communities, the local candidates' campaign platforms, and the local candidate debates during the 2004 election. In response to the challenge, many broadcasters sent volumes of material detailing their extensive election coverage and committing to increase their coverage in 2004. Today, the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California released findings showing that local news coverage of local political campaigns is dismal. Specifically, the study found that 92 percent of the news broadcasts studied contained no stories about races for the U.S. House, State senate or assembly, mayor, city council, law-enforcement posts, judgeships, education offices, or regional or county offices.

Therefore, I feel it is now time to introduce legislation to bring local back into local broadcasting. I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction. It will have a small impact on those stations that are currently meeting their public interest obligations, but it should have a large impact on those citizens whose local broadcaster is not meeting its obligations. I refuse to believe that the ``public interest'' is served by minimal campaign coverage, such as a 12 second sound bite on from a candidate during a half-hour local news program as found in the study. Citizens deserve more from their local broadcaster.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Localism in Broadcasting Reform Act of 2005.'' This legislation would reduce the license term for broadcasters from 8 years to 3 years, thereby requiring broadcasters to provide the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) with information every 3 years on why their license should be renewed. Prior to 1981, broadcast licenses were granted for a term of 3 years.

The bill would require the full Commission to review 5 percent of all license and renewal applications. Currently, the Media Bureau randomly audits 5 percent of all license renewal applications. The FCC first started an audit process back in the 1980s when the FCC changed its license renewal process from one where stations submitted evidence of ``public interest'' obligations compliance to one where stations self certify compliance, critics call it a ``post card renewal''. This section would take the audit process a step further by requiring the Commissioners to review the applications selected for audit rather than the Media Bureau.

The bill would command broadcasters to post on their Internet sites information detailing their commitment to local public affairs programming and children's programming. The bill also calls for the FCC to complete

its proceeding on whether public interest obligations should apply to broadcasters in the digital era.

To ensure that viewers or listeners can fully participate in a broadcaster's license renewal, the bill would codify the Commission's rule that a viewer or listener has standing to challenge a license if he demonstrates either that he resides in the station's service area or that he regularly listens or views the station and that such listening or viewing is not the result of transient contacts with the station.

Lastly, the bill would allow the Commission, during a license renewal proceeding, to review not only the performance of the station seeking renewal, but also the performance of all stations owned by the licensee seeking renewal. The current statute restricts the Commission's review only to that station seeking the renewal.

Last June, FCC Chairman Michael Powell and I challenged all local broadcast television and radio stations to provide their local communities with significant information on the local political issues facing communities, the local candidates' campaign platforms, and the local candidate debates during the 2004 election. In response to the challenge, many broadcasters sent volumes of material detailing their extensive election coverage and committing to increase their coverage in 2004. Today, the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California released findings showing that local news coverage of local political campaigns is dismal. Specifically, the study found that 92 percent of the news broadcasts studied contained no stories about races for the U.S. House, State senate or assembly, mayor, city council, law-enforcement posts, judgeships, education offices, or regional or county offices.

Therefore, I feel it is now time to introduce legislation to bring local back into local broadcasting. I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction. It will have a small impact on those stations that are currently meeting their public interest obligations, but it should have a large impact on those citizens whose local broadcaster is not meeting its obligations. I refuse to believe that the ``public interest'' is served by minimal campaign coverage, such as a 12 second sound bite on from a candidate during a half-hour local news program as found in the study. Citizens deserve more from their local broadcaster.

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

Mr. President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedures of the committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. On January 26, 2005, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a business meeting during which the members of the committee unanimously adopted rules to govern the procedures of the committee. Consistent with standing rule XXVI, today I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the rules of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for Indian programs.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined with Senator Lieberman in introducing the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005. This bill is nearly identical to a proposal we offered during the 108th Congress. It is designed to begin a meaningful and shared effort among the emission-producing sectors of our country to address the world's greatest environmental challenge--climate change.

The National Academy of Sciences reported:

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.

Again, ``temperatures are, in fact, rising.'' Those are the words of the National Academy of Sciences, a body created by the Congress in 1863 to provide advice to the Federal Government on scientific and technical matters. These comments were written after much thoughtful deliberation and should not be taken lightly. The Academy has a 140- year history and a strong reputation of service to the people of this great country.

In October 2003, in response to the alarming changes in the climate that are being reported worldwide, we were joined by a number of other Senators in the first offering of our proposal for addressing climate change for Senate consideration. We had a hard-fought debate and found ourselves eight votes short of achieving a majority in passage. Today, we resume what we finally can consider a worthy and necessary cause.

I state at the outset that this issue is not going away. This issue is one of transcendent importance outside the boundaries of the United States of America. If you travel to Europe today and visit with our European friends, you will find that climate change/Kyoto treaty are major sources of dissatisfaction on that side of the Atlantic with the United States of America and its policies. But far more important than that, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is real, that it is happening as we speak. The Arctic and Antarctic are the ``miner's canary'' of climate change, and profound and terrible things are happening at the poles, not to mention other parts of the world.

Democracies usually respond to crises when they are faced with them and, at least in the case of this Nation, we address problems and crises that confront us and we move on. We are not very good at long- term planning and long-term addressing of issues that face us in the future. The divisions concerning the issue of Social Security are clearly an example of what I just said.

If we do not move on this issue, our children and grandchildren are going to pay an incredibly heavy price because this crisis is upon us, only we do not see its visible aspects in all of its enormity.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, assuming the stewardship of the G-8, has made it his highest priority. He has very aptly pointed out: Suppose that all of the scientific opinion is wrong; suppose that the ice that is breaking up in the Antarctic in huge chunks is just something which is temporary; suppose that the glaciers receding in the Arctic at a higher rate than at any time in history is something that is a one-time deal; suppose that the melting of the permafrost in Alaska and the Inuit villages collapsing into the ocean is a one-time thing; suppose these increases in violent climate occurrences are all something that are just temporary aberrations; suppose that happens to be true and we have acted. Then the world and the Nation will be better off because we would have developed technologies which are cleaner. We would have taken actions to reduce what everybody agrees is harmful, and that is excess greenhouse gases. And the Nation and the world would be better off.

But suppose the scientists are right. Suppose that the National Academy of Sciences report that says, ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities[ . . . ]'' is right; suppose that Dr. Robert Corell, chair of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, assessing the economic impacts and consequences of the changing Arctic, and the Arctic Council, composed of the senior officials from the eight Arctic countries that reached the conclusion that the Arctic climate is changing rapidly; that over the past 50 years, temperatures across Alaska, Canada, and much of Russia have increased 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, with winter temperatures in these areas increasing by up to 7 degrees Fahrenheit; that in the past 30 years, the Arctic has lost an area of annual average sea ice larger than all of Arizona and Texas combined, with even stronger declines observed in summer sea ice; that mountain glaciers have also receded dramatically, and the snow cover season

has been shrinking; that greenhouse gas concentration continues to rise; and even larger changes in climate are projected for the next 100 years; suppose they are right.

The observed warming is already having significant impacts on Arctic people and ecosystems. Much larger projected climate changes will result in even greater impacts on the people in the Arctic and beyond. Increasing coastal erosion threatens many Alaskan villages. Warming is also affecting the oil industry. The number of days in which oil exploration and extraction activities on the tundra are allowed under Alaska Department of Natural Resources standards has been halved over the past 30 years.

The projected changes in Arctic climate will also have global implications. Amplified global warming, rising sea levels, and potential alterations in ocean circulation patterns that can have large-scale climatic effects are among the global concerns. Melting Arctic snow and ice cause additional absorption of solar energy by the darker land surface, amplifying the warming trend at the global scale.

Recently, the Australians have predicted that the Great Barrier Reef will be dead by 2050. What is the impact of coral reefs around the world being bleached and dying on the food chain?

Dr. William Fraser, president of Polar Oceans Research Group, testified that mountain ranges flanking the southeastern boundary of the glacier, not visible 30 years ago, are emerging into full view. The amount of ice-free land along the entire southwest coast of Anver Island has been redefined by glacier retreat. Populations of the ice- avoiding Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins have increased by 55 to 90 percent.

The coral reefs are the most biologically diverse ecosystem of the ocean, as we all know. Almost 1,000 coral species currently exist. With the majority of human populations living in coastal regions, many people depend on living coral reef for food and protection from storm surges.

Dr. Lara Hansen stated:

While the Great Barrier Reef is widely considered to be one

of the best managed reef systems in the world, local

conservation actions will not be sufficient to protect coral

reefs from the effects of climate change. To date, studies

indicate that the best chance for successful conservation in

the face of climate change is to limit the temperature

increase. . . .

ADM James Watkins, who was chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, testified that climate change impacts every topic in the report from the health and safety of humans, the health of environment and fisheries to the distribution of marine organisms, including pathogens. Admiral Watkins, former Chief of Naval Operations and former Secretary of Energy, not a renowned environmentalist, went on to say climate change is a serious problem, and it could affect all of the recommendations from the report.

There will be people who will come to this floor and say that climate change is a myth; it is not serious. They will find a scientist, they will find some study group, some of them funded by people with special interests here, but I hope that we will pay attention to Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has made climate change one of the two issues he hopes to address during his presidency of the G-8. This issue I believe is very well understood by a majority of scientists in America.

I have a couple of pictures I will show. I see my colleague from Connecticut is in the Chamber.

Recently, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated that he personally believes that the world has ``already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.''

He went on to say:

Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of

opportunity, and it is closing rapidly. There is not a moment

to lose.

The International Climate Change Task Force, chaired by Senator Snowe and the Right Honorable Stephen Byers, Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom, stated in 1 of its 10 recommendations concerning climate change that ``all developed countries introduce mandatory cap- and-trade systems for carbon emissions and construct them to allow for future integration into a single global market.'' That is already being done in Europe as we speak, which is the substance of Senator Lieberman's and my legislation.

States are acting. Nine States in the East have signed on as full participants in this initiative to elevate climate mitigation strategies from voluntary initiatives to a regulatory program. The State of California has approved a new State regulation aimed at decreasing carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. The States are way ahead of us. I believe one of the reasons for that is because special interests are less active in the States.

This is a chart that shows that the CO2 data has gone up from, as we can see, 1860 to 2001.

This is a picture of the Arctic sea ice loss. The red outline is 1979. This was the Arctic sea ice, which is outlined in red. We can see the size of the Arctic sea ice today. I made a visit with some of my colleagues to the Arctic. We took a ship and stopped at where this glacier was 5 years ago, traveling a number of miles and saw where that glacier is today.

I want to emphasize again, the Arctic and the Antarctic are the miner's canary of global warming because of the thinness of the atmosphere there.

This chart is sea level changes in areas of Florida that would be inundated with a sea level rise.

I usually have--it is probably not here--I usually have a picture of Mount Kilimanjaro, which is known to many of us.

This is a chart of coral bleaching which is taking place as we speak.

If I can add a little parochialism, if I can show a picture of Lake Powell in Arizona, it has been drying up since 1999, draining Lake Powell to well below its high watermark. It is at an alltime low in its seventh year. The lake has shrunk to 10 percent of its capacity.

The signs of climate change are all around us. We need to act. We need to develop technologies and make it economically attractive for industry to find it in their interest to develop technology which will reduce and bring into check the greenhouse gas emissions in the world.

We need to do a lot of things, but a cap and trade, which would put an end to the increase of greenhouse gases and a gradual reduction, is an integral part.

Finally, I would like to return to my other argument in closing.

Suppose the Senator from Connecticut and I are deluded, that all of this scientific evidence, all these opinions, people such as Admiral Watkins in the oceans report, the National Academy of Sciences, the literally hundreds of people in the scientific community with whom Senator Lieberman and I have met and talked are wrong.

Here is the picture of Kilimanjaro in 1912, 1970, and 2000.

Suppose we are deluded, that we are tree-hugging environmentalists who have taken leave of our senses and are sounding a false alarm to the world, and we go ahead and put in a cap and trade, we encourage technologies to be developed and funded, some by the Federal Government in the form of pure research, and we do put a cap on the greenhouse gases, we negotiate an alternate Kyoto Treaty with our friends throughout the world--140 nations are signatories to the Kyoto Treaty-- and we join on the provision India and China have to be included and other provisions which we have every right to demand, and we start moving forward on this issue and we are wrong, that the year after next, everything is fine in the world? Then we will have made probably a significant contribution to the betterment of the world and the Earth by reducing greenhouse gases, by developing cleaner technologies, by doing good things, and then Senator Lieberman and I will come to the floor and apologize for sounding this alarm.

But suppose, Mr. President, that we are right. Suppose the National Academy of Sciences is right. Suppose the eight-nation research council that is deeply alarmed at these effects in both the Arctic and Antarctic is wrong; suppose Admiral Watkins is wrong; suppose the Australian Government is wrong when it says the Great Barrier Reef is going to be dead by 2050, and we have done nothing? We have done relatively nothing besides gather additional data and make reports. That is what the U.S. national policy is today: gather information and make reports. I

would argue that is a pretty heavy burden to lay on future generations of Americans.

I welcome the participation, friendship, and commitment of my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article entitled ``Arid Arizona Points to Global Warming as Culprit,'' and a response to Senator Inhofe's floor statement on January 4, 2005.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Feinstein, Snowe, Durbin, Chafee, Lautenberg, Murray, Nelson, Corzine, Dayton, Cantwell, and Kerry.

Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Lieberman, again, and I would like to quote again from Prime Minister Blair, who announced that action on global warming will be his first priority as Chair of the G-8. He has taken a leadership role, choosing 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 recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said:

. . . if America wants the rest of the world to be part of

the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda too. .

. .

It is past time for our country to show leadership in addressing the world's greatest environmental challenge, climate change.