Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Local Community Radio Act of 2005. This bill would allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to license Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels to full power stations without limitations and eliminate the requirement that the FCC perform further testing on the economic impact of Low Power FM radio. Additionally, the bill seeks to protect stations that provide radio reading services, which some have suggested are more susceptible to interference then other stations because they are carried on a subcarrier frequency. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Leahy and Cantwell who are co- sponsors of the bill. I thank them for their support. A similar bill was introduced in the 108th Congress and passed out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

In January 2000, the FCC launched Low Power FM radio service to ``enhance locally focused community-oriented radio broadcasting.'' Low Power FM stations are just that--low power radio stations on the FM band that generally reach an audience within a 3.5 mile radius of the station's transmitter. In rural areas, this signal may not reach many people, but it provides rural citizens with another media outlet-- another voice in the market. In urban areas, this signal may reach hundreds of thousands of people and provide not just local content, but very specific neighborhood news and information.

Localism is increasingly important in today's changing media landscape. Rampant ownership consolidation has taken place in the radio industry since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since that time, many Americans have complained that the large media conglomerates fail to serve local communities' interests and seem to use their local station license as a conduit to air national programming. Low Power FM was introduced, in part, to respond to such complaints.

Between May 1999 and May 2000, the Commission received over 3,400 applications for Low Power FM stations from non-commercial educational entities and community organizations. However, before the Commission could act on many of the applications for this new community service, broadcasters frightened legislators into halting the full implementation of Low Power FM. Broadcasters masqueraded their true concerns about competition from a real local radio broadcaster in thinly veiled claims of interference.

Due to the broadcasters' subterfuge, Congress added language to a 2000 appropriations bill requiring the FCC to hire an independent engineering firm to further study broadcasters' claims of interference. I am not happy to report that after spending almost two years and over 2 million dollars, the independent study revealed what the FCC and community groups had said all along: LPFM will do no harm to other broadcasters. Perhaps, we should send a bill to the National Association of Broadcasters.

That brings us to the future of Low Power FM. The FCC, as required by the appropriations language, reported the study's findings to Congress last February and recommended full implementation of Low Power FM. This bill simply follows the FCC's recommendation: begin licensing Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels to full power stations without limitations. Additionally, the bill seeks to protect full power stations that provide radio reading services. It is estimated that about 1.1 million people in the U.S. are blind, and it is important to ensure this helpful radio reading service remains interference free.

The enactment of this bill will immediately make available a number of Low Power FM frequencies. By some estimates, Congress' legislation delaying the full implementation, which mostly affected metropolitan areas, led to the elimination of half the Low Power FM applications filed during 2000.

For example, Congress' action eliminated the LPFM slot in Fresno applied for by El Comite de los Pobres. The group had hoped to address the dearth of local programming for the Latino community by airing bilingual coverage of local issues. New Orleans' Music Business Institute's application was eliminated as well. The Music Business Institute teaches young people how to get into the music business. The Institute had planned to use the station to help start the musical careers of local artists, and to educate listeners about the city's jazz and blues musical heritage.

There are some wonderful LPFM stations that are up and running. A recent article published in The Nation called these stations, ``beacons of grassroots democracy.'' The article discussed WRFR in Rockland, Maine: ``Shunning the canned programming approach of Rockland's two Clear Channel stations, WRFR offers an array of local talent, tastes and interests, and was recently named Maine station of the year by a state music association. Although country music, a Maine favorite, is heavily represented, hardly any WRFR deejay restricts himself to a single era, genre or Top-40 play list.''

In 2000, the Southern Development Foundation established a Low Power FM station in Opelousas, Louisiana, which sponsors agriculture programs, leases land to farmers, raises money for scholarships for needy kids and helps citizens learn to read. The station director told a local community newsletter: ``You've got local radio stations that are owned by larger companies. There should be some programming concerning the music that is from here, and the people from here. But there's not.''

I ask the broadcasters to come clean and join us in promoting LPFM. More good radio brings about more radio listening--and that's good for all broadcasters. Therefore, in the interests of would-be new broadcasters, existing broadcasters, but most of all, the listening public, I urge the enactment of the Local Community Radio Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Local Community Radio Act of 2005. This bill would allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to license Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels to full power stations without limitations and eliminate the requirement that the FCC perform further testing on the economic impact of Low Power FM radio. Additionally, the bill seeks to protect stations that provide radio reading services, which some have suggested are more susceptible to interference then other stations because they are carried on a subcarrier frequency. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Leahy and Cantwell who are co- sponsors of the bill. I thank them for their support. A similar bill was introduced in the 108th Congress and passed out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

In January 2000, the FCC launched Low Power FM radio service to ``enhance locally focused community-oriented radio broadcasting.'' Low Power FM stations are just that--low power radio stations on the FM band that generally reach an audience within a 3.5 mile radius of the station's transmitter. In rural areas, this signal may not reach many people, but it provides rural citizens with another media outlet-- another voice in the market. In urban areas, this signal may reach hundreds of thousands of people and provide not just local content, but very specific neighborhood news and information.

Localism is increasingly important in today's changing media landscape. Rampant ownership consolidation has taken place in the radio industry since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since that time, many Americans have complained that the large media conglomerates fail to serve local communities' interests and seem to use their local station license as a conduit to air national programming. Low Power FM was introduced, in part, to respond to such complaints.

Between May 1999 and May 2000, the Commission received over 3,400 applications for Low Power FM stations from non-commercial educational entities and community organizations. However, before the Commission could act on many of the applications for this new community service, broadcasters frightened legislators into halting the full implementation of Low Power FM. Broadcasters masqueraded their true concerns about competition from a real local radio broadcaster in thinly veiled claims of interference.

Due to the broadcasters' subterfuge, Congress added language to a 2000 appropriations bill requiring the FCC to hire an independent engineering firm to further study broadcasters' claims of interference. I am not happy to report that after spending almost two years and over 2 million dollars, the independent study revealed what the FCC and community groups had said all along: LPFM will do no harm to other broadcasters. Perhaps, we should send a bill to the National Association of Broadcasters.

That brings us to the future of Low Power FM. The FCC, as required by the appropriations language, reported the study's findings to Congress last February and recommended full implementation of Low Power FM. This bill simply follows the FCC's recommendation: begin licensing Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels to full power stations without limitations. Additionally, the bill seeks to protect full power stations that provide radio reading services. It is estimated that about 1.1 million people in the U.S. are blind, and it is important to ensure this helpful radio reading service remains interference free.

The enactment of this bill will immediately make available a number of Low Power FM frequencies. By some estimates, Congress' legislation delaying the full implementation, which mostly affected metropolitan areas, led to the elimination of half the Low Power FM applications filed during 2000.

For example, Congress' action eliminated the LPFM slot in Fresno applied for by El Comite de los Pobres. The group had hoped to address the dearth of local programming for the Latino community by airing bilingual coverage of local issues. New Orleans' Music Business Institute's application was eliminated as well. The Music Business Institute teaches young people how to get into the music business. The Institute had planned to use the station to help start the musical careers of local artists, and to educate listeners about the city's jazz and blues musical heritage.

There are some wonderful LPFM stations that are up and running. A recent article published in The Nation called these stations, ``beacons of grassroots democracy.'' The article discussed WRFR in Rockland, Maine: ``Shunning the canned programming approach of Rockland's two Clear Channel stations, WRFR offers an array of local talent, tastes and interests, and was recently named Maine station of the year by a state music association. Although country music, a Maine favorite, is heavily represented, hardly any WRFR deejay restricts himself to a single era, genre or Top-40 play list.''

In 2000, the Southern Development Foundation established a Low Power FM station in Opelousas, Louisiana, which sponsors agriculture programs, leases land to farmers, raises money for scholarships for needy kids and helps citizens learn to read. The station director told a local community newsletter: ``You've got local radio stations that are owned by larger companies. There should be some programming concerning the music that is from here, and the people from here. But there's not.''

I ask the broadcasters to come clean and join us in promoting LPFM. More good radio brings about more radio listening--and that's good for all broadcasters. Therefore, in the interests of would-be new broadcasters, existing broadcasters, but most of all, the listening public, I urge the enactment of the Local Community Radio Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friends and colleagues Senators Feingold from Wisconsin, and Lott from Mississippi, and our good friends who lead the campaign finance reform fight in the House, Representatives Shays and Meehan, in introducing a bill to end the illegal practice of 527 groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections.

As my colleagues know, a number of 527 groups raised and spent a substantial amount of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of last year's Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the Federal Election Commission, FEC, has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC's misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts.

According to an analysis by campaign finance scholar Tony Corrado, Federally oriented 527s spent $423 million on the 2004 elections. The same analysis shows that ten donors gave at least $4 million each to 527s involved in the 2004 elections and two donors each contributed over $20 million.

In September, we filed a lawsuit to overturn the FEC's failure to issue regulations to stop these illegal practices by 527 groups. President Bush and his campaign filed a similar lawsuit against the FEC as well, and I also appreciate President Bush's support for the legislative effort we begin today on 527s. Today, we are introducing legislation that will accomplish the same result. We are going to follow every possible avenue to stop 527 groups from effectively breaking the law, and doing what they are already prohibited from doing by longstanding laws.

The bill we introduce today is simple. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal candidate elections, State or local ballot initiatives, or the nomination or confirmation of individuals to non- elected offices.

Additionally, this legislation would set new rules for Federal political committees that spend funds on voter mobilization efforts effecting both Federal and local races and, therefore, use both a Federal and a non-Federal account under FEC regulations. The new rules would prevent unlimited soft money from being channeled into Federal election activities by these Federal political committees.

Under the new rules, at least half of the funds spent on these voter mobilization activities by Federal political committees would have to be hard money from their Federal account. More importantly, the funds raised for their non-Federal account would have to come from individuals and would be limited to no more than $25,000 per year per donor. Corporations and labor unions could not contribute to these non- Federal accounts. To put it in simple terms, a George Soros could give $25,000 per year as opposed to $10 million to finance these activities.

Let me be perfectly clear on one point here. Our proposal will not shut down 527s, it will simply require them to abide by the same Federal regulations every other Federal political committee must abide by in spending money to influence Federal elections.

It is unfortunate that we even need to be here introducing this bill today. This legislation would not be necessary if it weren't for the abject failure of the FEC to enforce existing law. As my colleagues well know, some organizations, registered under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, had a major impact on last year's presidential election by raising and spending illegal soft money to run ads attacking both President Bush and Senator Kerry. The use of soft money to finance these activities is clearly illegal under current statute, and the fact that they have been allowed to continue unchecked is unconscionable.

The blame for this lack of enforcement does not lie with the Congress, nor with the Administration. The blame for this continuing illegal activity lies squarely with the FEC. This agency has a duty to issue regulations to properly implement and enforce the Nation's campaign laws--and the FEC has failed, and it has failed miserably to carry out that responsibility. The Supreme Court found that to be the case in its McConnell decision, and Judge Kollar-Kotelly found that to be the case in her decision overturning 15 regulations incorrectly adopted by the FEC to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA. That is why a Los Angeles Times editorial stated that, ``her decision would make a fitting obituary for an agency that deserves to die.'' We are not going to allow the destructive FEC to continue

to undermine the Nation's campaign finance laws as it has been consistently doing for the past two decades.

Opponents of campaign reform like to point out that the activities of these 527s serve as proof that BCRA has failed in its stated purpose to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money in our political campaigns. Let me be perfectly clear on this. The 527 issue has nothing to do with BCRA, it has everything to do with the 1974 law and the failure of the FEC to do its job and properly regulate the activities of these groups.

As further evidence of the FEC's lack of capability, let me quote from a couple of court decisions which highlight this agency's shortcomings. First, in its decision upholding the constitutionality of BCRA in McConnell v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the FEC had ``subverted'' the law, issued regulations that ``permitted more than Congress had ever intended,'' and ``invited widespread circumvention'' of FECA's limits on contributions. Additionally, in September, a Federal district court judge threw out 15 of the FEC's regulations implementing BCRA. Among the reasons for her actions were that one provision ``severely undermines FECA'' and would ``foster corruption'', another ``runs completely afoul'' of current law, another would ``render the statute largely meaningless'' and, finally, that another had ``no rational basis.''

The track record of the FEC is clear and, by their continued stonewalling, the Commission has proven itself to be nothing more than a bureaucratic nightmare, and the time has come to put an end to its destructive tactics. The FEC has had ample, and well documented, opportunities to address the issue of the 527's illegal activities, and each time they have taken a pass, choosing instead to delay, postpone, and refuse to act.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer's dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the American people, and the Constitution. We've fought too long and too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law.

So, here is the bottom line: If the FEC won't do its job, and its commissioners have proven time and time again that they won't, then we'll do it for them. The bill Senators Feingold, Lott and I introduce today will put an end to the abusive, illegal practices of these 527s.

I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this bill and put an end to this problem once and for all.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friends and colleagues Senators Feingold from Wisconsin, and Lott from Mississippi, and our good friends who lead the campaign finance reform fight in the House, Representatives Shays and Meehan, in introducing a bill to end the illegal practice of 527 groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections.

As my colleagues know, a number of 527 groups raised and spent a substantial amount of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of last year's Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the Federal Election Commission, FEC, has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC's misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts.

According to an analysis by campaign finance scholar Tony Corrado, Federally oriented 527s spent $423 million on the 2004 elections. The same analysis shows that ten donors gave at least $4 million each to 527s involved in the 2004 elections and two donors each contributed over $20 million.

In September, we filed a lawsuit to overturn the FEC's failure to issue regulations to stop these illegal practices by 527 groups. President Bush and his campaign filed a similar lawsuit against the FEC as well, and I also appreciate President Bush's support for the legislative effort we begin today on 527s. Today, we are introducing legislation that will accomplish the same result. We are going to follow every possible avenue to stop 527 groups from effectively breaking the law, and doing what they are already prohibited from doing by longstanding laws.

The bill we introduce today is simple. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal candidate elections, State or local ballot initiatives, or the nomination or confirmation of individuals to non- elected offices.

Additionally, this legislation would set new rules for Federal political committees that spend funds on voter mobilization efforts effecting both Federal and local races and, therefore, use both a Federal and a non-Federal account under FEC regulations. The new rules would prevent unlimited soft money from being channeled into Federal election activities by these Federal political committees.

Under the new rules, at least half of the funds spent on these voter mobilization activities by Federal political committees would have to be hard money from their Federal account. More importantly, the funds raised for their non-Federal account would have to come from individuals and would be limited to no more than $25,000 per year per donor. Corporations and labor unions could not contribute to these non- Federal accounts. To put it in simple terms, a George Soros could give $25,000 per year as opposed to $10 million to finance these activities.

Let me be perfectly clear on one point here. Our proposal will not shut down 527s, it will simply require them to abide by the same Federal regulations every other Federal political committee must abide by in spending money to influence Federal elections.

It is unfortunate that we even need to be here introducing this bill today. This legislation would not be necessary if it weren't for the abject failure of the FEC to enforce existing law. As my colleagues well know, some organizations, registered under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, had a major impact on last year's presidential election by raising and spending illegal soft money to run ads attacking both President Bush and Senator Kerry. The use of soft money to finance these activities is clearly illegal under current statute, and the fact that they have been allowed to continue unchecked is unconscionable.

The blame for this lack of enforcement does not lie with the Congress, nor with the Administration. The blame for this continuing illegal activity lies squarely with the FEC. This agency has a duty to issue regulations to properly implement and enforce the Nation's campaign laws--and the FEC has failed, and it has failed miserably to carry out that responsibility. The Supreme Court found that to be the case in its McConnell decision, and Judge Kollar-Kotelly found that to be the case in her decision overturning 15 regulations incorrectly adopted by the FEC to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA. That is why a Los Angeles Times editorial stated that, ``her decision would make a fitting obituary for an agency that deserves to die.'' We are not going to allow the destructive FEC to continue

to undermine the Nation's campaign finance laws as it has been consistently doing for the past two decades.

Opponents of campaign reform like to point out that the activities of these 527s serve as proof that BCRA has failed in its stated purpose to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money in our political campaigns. Let me be perfectly clear on this. The 527 issue has nothing to do with BCRA, it has everything to do with the 1974 law and the failure of the FEC to do its job and properly regulate the activities of these groups.

As further evidence of the FEC's lack of capability, let me quote from a couple of court decisions which highlight this agency's shortcomings. First, in its decision upholding the constitutionality of BCRA in McConnell v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the FEC had ``subverted'' the law, issued regulations that ``permitted more than Congress had ever intended,'' and ``invited widespread circumvention'' of FECA's limits on contributions. Additionally, in September, a Federal district court judge threw out 15 of the FEC's regulations implementing BCRA. Among the reasons for her actions were that one provision ``severely undermines FECA'' and would ``foster corruption'', another ``runs completely afoul'' of current law, another would ``render the statute largely meaningless'' and, finally, that another had ``no rational basis.''

The track record of the FEC is clear and, by their continued stonewalling, the Commission has proven itself to be nothing more than a bureaucratic nightmare, and the time has come to put an end to its destructive tactics. The FEC has had ample, and well documented, opportunities to address the issue of the 527's illegal activities, and each time they have taken a pass, choosing instead to delay, postpone, and refuse to act.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer's dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress, the Supreme Court, the American people, and the Constitution. We've fought too long and too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law.

So, here is the bottom line: If the FEC won't do its job, and its commissioners have proven time and time again that they won't, then we'll do it for them. The bill Senators Feingold, Lott and I introduce today will put an end to the abusive, illegal practices of these 527s.

I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this bill and put an end to this problem once and for all.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 4 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Dr. Rice has served the President with distinction over the past 4 years as National Security Adviser, and I have complete confidence she will bring the same talents, energy, and vision we have witnessed thus far to her new job at the State Department's helm.

In many of her recent remarks and those of President Bush, Dr. Rice has emphasized the promotion of freedom and democracy as a hallmark of American foreign policy. Not only has Dr. Rice made democracy a centerpiece of her time at the White House, but also her life itself illustrates the final triumph of true democracy at home.

Dr. Rice grew up in Birmingham, AL, in the heart of the segregated South. She has spoken movingly about her memory of the 1963 church bombing in her hometown. One of the innocent little girls who died there was a friend of hers.

Dr. Rice grew up in a time and place where America's founding ideals had not yet become reality for all of our citizens. The United States, a country built on the idea of freedom, was not yet a full democracy.

Perhaps it was this experience that led Dr. Rice to make the study and practice of political systems her life's work. After receiving her Ph.D. at the University of Denver, she joined Stanford University and quickly became identified as one of the world's leading scholars of the Soviet Union. We all know of her distinguished career since then.

Dr. Rice has the confidence of the President of the United States. Dr. Rice has the confidence of the majority of this Senate. We know, as many of her critics have admitted on this floor, she will be easily confirmed.

So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion. It cannot be for a lack of priorities because we surely have enough on our legislative plate this year. It can't be because Dr. Rice has suggested she has some flaw so fundamental that the Senate must block the President's choice. I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections.

We need to move on. The people of the United States made their choice last November and they expect their elected officials to govern accordingly.

When President Clinton was reelected for his second term, I didn't share the policy views of some of the officials he nominated, but I do not recall going through protracted battles such as this. We all have varying policy views, but the President, in my view, has a clear right to put into place the team he believes will serve him best.

I believe this Nation is honored by the presence of Dr. Rice, by what she represents, by what she has achieved, and I believe she will be an enduring role model to all Americans, particularly Americans who are not of the majority in race in our country.

I believe Dr. Rice is a living example of what can happen in America. From a beginning in a segregated South to the Secretary of State of the most powerful nation in the world is a great American success story. I hope all my colleagues, at the completion of this overwhelming vote in favor of her confirmation, will celebrate this great American success story and all of us will look forward to her leadership of the Department of State, and working with her here in the Halls of Congress.

I yield the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Stevens and Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2005. This legislation is virtually identical to a measure approved unanimously by the Senate last year. I remain committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act through the Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote favorably on this important legislation. Simply put, this legislation would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued the sport for far too many years, and that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation's professional boxers.

For almost a decade, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of professional boxing--and for very good reason. With rare exception, professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. They are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our Nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed.

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Current Federal boxing law has improved to some extent the state of professional boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport remains at risk. Some State and tribal boxing commissions still to this day do not comply with Federal boxing law, and there is still a troubling lack of enforcement of the law by both Federal and State officials. Indeed, professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national self-regulating organization--though preferable to Federal government oversight--is not a realistic option.

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.

This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission (USBC or Commission). The Commission would be responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of professional boxing in the United States.

The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.

It is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation

with local commissions, and it would only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law.

Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The establishment of the USBC would address that need.

The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public--and more importantly--compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing these problems. I again urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kyl in introducing the Northern Arizona Forest Lands Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005. The Senate passed by unanimous consent a nearly identical measure late last year. Unfortunately, the House did not have the time to pass the bill before the 108th Congress adjourned. It is my hope that this compromise bill will pass quickly in both Houses and become law in the near future.

This legislation is the product of many years of negotiation and compromise. It provides a sound framework for a fair and equal value exchange of 50,000 acres of private and public land in Northern Arizona. The bill also addresses water issues associated with the exchange of lands located within the Verde River Basin watershed by limiting water usage on certain exchanged lands and supporting the development of a collaborative science-based water resource planning and management entity for the Verde River Basin watershed.

After countless hours of deliberation and discussion by all parties, I believe that the compromise reached on the bill is both balanced and foresighted in addressing the various issues raised by the exchange. I want to thank Senator Kyl and his staff, as well as Senators Domenici and Bingaman, and their staffs on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for their tireless efforts in reaching this agreement at the end of the last session. I also want to recognize the work of Congressmen Renzi and Hayworth who have championed this legislation in the House of Representatives. Representative Renzi plans to introduce a companion bill in the House this week.

The Arizona delegation is strongly supportive of the legislation because it will offer significant benefits for all parties. Benefits will accrue to the U.S. Forest Service and the public with the consolidation of checkerboard lands and the protection and enhanced management of extensive forest and grasslands. The communities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde will also benefit in terms of economic development opportunities, water supply, and other important purposes.

While facilitating the exchange of public and private lands is a very important objective of this legislation, and indeed, was the original purpose when we began working on it several years ago, I now consider the provisions concerning water management even more crucial. Since introducing the original legislation in April 2003, I have heard from hundreds of Arizonans and learned first-hand of the significant water issues raised by the transfer of Federal land into private ownership. We have modified the bill to take into account many of the concerns raised during meetings held in Northern Arizona by limiting water usage on exchanged lands and removing certain lands entirely from the exchange.

There is growing recognition throughout Arizona of the need to face the crucial challenge of wise management of limited water supplies, particularly with the extended drought coupled with rapid population growth. Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to participate in an Arizona Water Conservation Forum which was attended by educators, business leaders, and State and local officials. I think the majority of us came away more aware of the management measures needed to provide for a more secure water future.

This bill promotes an important opportunity to encourage sound water management in Northern Arizona by supporting the creation of a collaborative, science-based decision-making body to advance essential planning and management at the State and local level. To be successful, this effort will require the involvement of all the stakeholders with water supply responsibilities and interests and a solid foundation of knowledge about available resources and existing demands. We are fortunate to have an existing model of collaborative science-based water resource planning and management with the Upper San Pedro Partnership in

the Sierra Vista subwatershed of Arizona. In my view, the establishment of a similar, cooperative body in the Verde Basin will be a vital step in assuring the wise use of our limited water resources.

I look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation in this Congress and again thank all of the parties involved with this effort during the past several years. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Stevens and Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2005. This legislation is virtually identical to a measure approved unanimously by the Senate last year. I remain committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act through the Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote favorably on this important legislation. Simply put, this legislation would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued the sport for far too many years, and that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation's professional boxers.

For almost a decade, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of professional boxing--and for very good reason. With rare exception, professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. They are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our Nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed.

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Current Federal boxing law has improved to some extent the state of professional boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport remains at risk. Some State and tribal boxing commissions still to this day do not comply with Federal boxing law, and there is still a troubling lack of enforcement of the law by both Federal and State officials. Indeed, professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national self-regulating organization--though preferable to Federal government oversight--is not a realistic option.

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.

This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission (USBC or Commission). The Commission would be responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of professional boxing in the United States.

The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.

It is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation

with local commissions, and it would only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law.

Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The establishment of the USBC would address that need.

The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public--and more importantly--compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing these problems. I again urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kyl in introducing the Northern Arizona Forest Lands Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005. The Senate passed by unanimous consent a nearly identical measure late last year. Unfortunately, the House did not have the time to pass the bill before the 108th Congress adjourned. It is my hope that this compromise bill will pass quickly in both Houses and become law in the near future.

This legislation is the product of many years of negotiation and compromise. It provides a sound framework for a fair and equal value exchange of 50,000 acres of private and public land in Northern Arizona. The bill also addresses water issues associated with the exchange of lands located within the Verde River Basin watershed by limiting water usage on certain exchanged lands and supporting the development of a collaborative science-based water resource planning and management entity for the Verde River Basin watershed.

After countless hours of deliberation and discussion by all parties, I believe that the compromise reached on the bill is both balanced and foresighted in addressing the various issues raised by the exchange. I want to thank Senator Kyl and his staff, as well as Senators Domenici and Bingaman, and their staffs on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for their tireless efforts in reaching this agreement at the end of the last session. I also want to recognize the work of Congressmen Renzi and Hayworth who have championed this legislation in the House of Representatives. Representative Renzi plans to introduce a companion bill in the House this week.

The Arizona delegation is strongly supportive of the legislation because it will offer significant benefits for all parties. Benefits will accrue to the U.S. Forest Service and the public with the consolidation of checkerboard lands and the protection and enhanced management of extensive forest and grasslands. The communities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde will also benefit in terms of economic development opportunities, water supply, and other important purposes.

While facilitating the exchange of public and private lands is a very important objective of this legislation, and indeed, was the original purpose when we began working on it several years ago, I now consider the provisions concerning water management even more crucial. Since introducing the original legislation in April 2003, I have heard from hundreds of Arizonans and learned first-hand of the significant water issues raised by the transfer of Federal land into private ownership. We have modified the bill to take into account many of the concerns raised during meetings held in Northern Arizona by limiting water usage on exchanged lands and removing certain lands entirely from the exchange.

There is growing recognition throughout Arizona of the need to face the crucial challenge of wise management of limited water supplies, particularly with the extended drought coupled with rapid population growth. Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to participate in an Arizona Water Conservation Forum which was attended by educators, business leaders, and State and local officials. I think the majority of us came away more aware of the management measures needed to provide for a more secure water future.

This bill promotes an important opportunity to encourage sound water management in Northern Arizona by supporting the creation of a collaborative, science-based decision-making body to advance essential planning and management at the State and local level. To be successful, this effort will require the involvement of all the stakeholders with water supply responsibilities and interests and a solid foundation of knowledge about available resources and existing demands. We are fortunate to have an existing model of collaborative science-based water resource planning and management with the Upper San Pedro Partnership in

the Sierra Vista subwatershed of Arizona. In my view, the establishment of a similar, cooperative body in the Verde Basin will be a vital step in assuring the wise use of our limited water resources.

I look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation in this Congress and again thank all of the parties involved with this effort during the past several years. I ask unanimous consent that the 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, January 26, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider the Committee budget resolution and proposed changes to the Committee rules and any other organizational business the committee needs to attend to.

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

subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to review the implementation of Titles I through III of P.L. 106-393, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should sent two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Frank M. Gladics at 202-224- 2878 or Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a business meeting on January 26, 2005 in SR-332 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the organization of the Committee for the 109th Congress.

Mr. President, I came here to applaud the enormous efforts of my two colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman. This has been a task that has been, in the view of many, insurmountable. This piece of legislation was declared dead on numerous occasions. It was through their tenacity, hard work, and willingness to compromise that we now have perhaps one of the most significant and important reorganizations of the Federal Government certainly since 1947 when we created the Department of Defense.

It is all very good news. No one could describe it better than my two colleagues who point out this is a law that has to be translated into action. We have to change the reorganization of the boxes, but we also have to change the culture, a culture that led the President of the United States to proceed to war on the assumption that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which apparently he did not; an assumption that caused our Secretary of State to testify before the U.N. Security Council that Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction, an assumption that, unfortunately, misled other intelligence agencies throughout the world, not only that of the United States of America. But, as always, America leads. So I applaud their outstanding work. As they said, this is the beginning of a beginning, but it is an important beginning. Without this legislation, I do not believe we could make significant progress.

I would like to thank the families of 9/11 who have steadfastly supported this legislation. Without their support, it would still be sitting at the desk as it was the day Senator Lieberman and I proposed it. I think their work is not over as well, because one of the failures of this body has been a total lack of congressional oversight reorganization. Still, there are numerous committees of congressional oversight. There has been no coordination, there has been no consolidation, and in the words of my friend, John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, in his words: The old bulls are more interested in protecting their turf in Congress than they are in national security.

That is a tough indictment, but I think it is true; there is no meaningful congressional oversight because of our failure to implement even the most modest reforms of congressional oversight, with the exception of permanent membership on the Intelligence Committee.

I want to point out and just talk for a minute about what has caused the holdup here the last month or so; that is, the immigration issues.

First, I always believed this legislation was about reorganization of our intelligence capabilities and not about immigration. I think I can state with some confidence that the issue of illegal immigration is one of overwhelming importance.

My State has been devastated in a broad variety of ways by the effects of illegal immigration, ranging from people dying in the desert, to overwhelming our health care facilities, to shootouts on our freeways, to other terrible things that are happening all

across the State of Arizona. We passed a ballot initiative this last election which, although I opposed, was certainly an expression of the frustration that the people of my State feel. But I would also point out, if anyone believes that simply strengthening our borders is the answer to our Nation's illegal immigration problem, they do not understand the problem.

Fifteen years ago, we declared a war on drugs, and we decided we would stop the flow of drugs across our borders which was poisoning the bodies and minds of our young Americans. The fact is, the cost of an ounce of cocaine on the street in Phoenix today is less expensive than it was 15 years ago. Why? Because there was a demand, and where there is a demand, there is going to be a supply.

There is a demand for workers for jobs that Americans will not do. What we have to have is comprehensive immigration reform that certainly entails strengthening our borders, increasing Border Patrol, and having better laws and better enforcement.

The issue of driver's licenses has to be discussed and debated because we are heading down--in a little straight talk--we are heading down a path toward a national ID card. I think that is something we ought to discuss and debate at some length before we take that step as a necessary one, if it is, in the war on terrorism.

So we have to have a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, and I hope that will be a top priority agenda item.

I say again that I am committed, and I know the President of the United States is committed, to overall, comprehensive immigration reform. I look forward to working with my friends on the other side of the aisle. This has to be a bipartisan issue, but it must be addressed because we can never assure the American people that they are safe from terrorists if our borders are penetrated, as they are today, by people who can easily come across illegally. But, overall, we also owe it to all men and women who live and work in this Nation to have certain protections.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, and, again, my congratulations to them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues a speech given by British Prime Minister Tony Blair on September 14, 2004 at a dinner to mark the 10th Anniversary of his Royal Highness' Business and Environmental Programme. Prime Minister Blair states that he believes that climate change is the world's greatest environmental challenge. In the speech, Prime Minister Blair outlined his plans to have the G8 countries take action to address the causes and effects of climate change by reaching three basic agreements. The prime minister hopes to reach agreements on the basic science on climate change and the threat it poses; a process to speed up the research and deployment of technologies to meet the threat posed by climate change; and ways to meet the growing energy needs around the world without further impacting the world's climate.

I ask unanimous consent that the prime minister's speech on climate change be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, November 11 marked the 80th anniversary of the Fleet Reserve Association, FRA, whose original charter was issued in Philadelphia, PA. FRA is the oldest and largest professional military organization representing the men and women serving in, or retired from the United States Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.

The Fleet Reserve Association is named after the Fleet Naval Reserve program, which allows sailors with 16 or more years of active enlisted service to separate from the Navy, but remain ``on call'' for periods of national emergency.

From its inception, FRA's purpose was to advocate for sailors' rights. The association started with the efforts of a few enlisted men in 1919, who pooled their monies to send two Navy chief petty officers to testify before Congress on pay reform. Since that time, FRA has established an enviable track record of promoting favorable legislation for members of the Naval Service.

In 1923, FRA's efforts resulted in legislation that allowed WWI veterans to count their commissioned or warrant service toward time requirements for transfer to the Fleet Naval Reserve.

In the 1930's, the FRA helped with legislation that eliminated the requirement for enlisted retirees to pay for rations while hospitalized in Government treatment facilities, mandated death gratuities be paid to the estate of recalled servicemembers who died on active duty, authorized commissary privileges for military widows, and restored reenlistment bonuses.

FRA's ``Hospital Rights'' and ``Widow's Equity'' studies also helped foster the creation of the Civilian Health Program of the Uniformed Services, CHAMPUS, in 1966 and the adoption of the Uniformed Services Survivor Benefit Program, USSBP, in 1972.

FRA's 1999 study on military pay also set the stage for the targeted pay hikes for mid-grade enlisted personnel over the last few years, the repeal of the 1986 military retirement system (Redux), authorization of sea pay for junior enlisted personnel, and the reduction of additional ``out-of-pocket'' housing costs for servicemembers living in civilian housing.

On top of its award-winning legislative advocacy work, the FRA continues to promote community service at their 300-plus branches located throughout the world. In 2004 they awarded $90,000 in college scholarships and $75,000 to worthy students who competed in the FRA's Americanism Essay Contest.

Mr. President, I thank the Fleet Reserve Association for its eight decades of service to the men and women of the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. As we close the 108th Congress, and look ahead toward the 109th Congress, I wish the Fleet Reserve Association continued success and look forward to working with them to support the past, present, and future member of all of the military services who protect our great Nation.

Mr. President, after several years of negotiation and compromise, I am pleased that the Northern Arizona Forest Lands Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2004 was approved by the Senate today. Through the dedicated efforts of all parties, this bipartisan agreement provides a sound framework for a fair and equal value exchange of 50,000 acres of private and public land in Northern Arizona. The bill also addresses the water issues raised by the exchange of lands located within the Verde River Basin watershed by limiting water usage on certain exchanged lands and by supporting the development of a collaborative science based water resource planning and management entity for the Verde River Basin watershed.

It is gratifying that the compromise reached on the bill, after countless hours of deliberation and discussion, is both balanced and foresighted in terms of addressing the various issues raised by the exchange. I want to thank Senator Kyl and his staff, as well as Senators Domenici and Bingaman, and their staffs on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for their tireless efforts in reaching this agreement. I also want to recognize the work of Congressmen Renzi and Hayworth who have championed this legislation in the House of Representatives.

The bill sets forth a sound process for the achievement of a fair market value exchange which is expected to offer significant benefits for all parties. Benefits will accrue to the U.S. Forest Service and the public with the consolidation of checkerboard lands and the protection and enhanced management of extensive forest and grasslands. The communities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde also will benefit in terms of economic development, water supply, and other important purposes.

Since introducing this legislation in April 2003, I have heard from hundreds

of Arizonans and learned first-hand of the significant water issues raised by the transfer of federal land into private ownership. I want to thank all of the citizens that offered their time, expertise, and interest and provided us with valuable information on these issues. In large measure because of their efforts, I am more keenly aware that one of the most crucial challenges facing Arizona is the wise management of its water resources, particularly as we endure extended drought coupled with rapid population growth. Therefore, I am pleased that in addition to facilitating the Northern Arizona land exchange, this bill includes a number of new provisions to address water supply concerns associated with the exchange.

First, in order to ensure that current water users and water rights holders are not adversely affected by increased future water demands, an agreement was reached to remove an 820 acre parcel of federal land in the Verde Valley, where the long-term availability of water supplies is uncertain and current problems exist. On the remaining 2000 acre parcel of federal land in the Verde Valley, a maximum water use limit of 300 acre-feet per year has been established along with other land and water use restrictions.

Further, this bill includes a new title which supports the creation of a Verde River Basin Partnership to advance sound water resource decision-making at the state and local level in Northern Arizona.

The development of a sound, long-term watershed management plan requires the involvement of all the stakeholders with water supply responsibilities and interests and a foundation of knowledge about available resources and existing demands. We are fortunate to have an existing model of collaborative science-based water resource planning and management with the Upper San Pedro Partnership in the Sierra Vista subwatershed of Arizona. In my view, the establishment of a similar, cooperative body in the Verde Basin will be a vital step in assuring the wise use of our limited water resources.

Again, I want to thank all of the parties involved in this legislation during the past several years.