Floor Statements

Mr. President, once again I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague Senator Feingold from Wisconsin in introducing a bill to end the illegal practice of 527 groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections.

This bill is very 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 Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation. The new rules would prevent unlimited soft money from being channeled into Federal election activities by these Federal political committees.

Under the new rules that would be established under this bill, 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.

It is unfortunate that we even need to be here introducing this bill today. This legislation would not be necessary if the FEC would enforce existing law. 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 the 2004 Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws,

but, unfortunately, the FEC has failed to implement the regulations necessary to stop these illegal activities.

According to an analysis by campaign finance scholar Tony Corrado, federally oriented 527s spent $423 million to affect the outcome of 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. 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.

Opponents of campaign finance reform like to point out that the activities of these 527s serve as proof that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) has failed in its stated purpose, which is 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 Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 and the failure of the FEC to properly regulate the activities of these groups.

The bill Senator Feingold and I are introducing today is designed to 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, once again I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague Senator Feingold from Wisconsin in introducing a bill to end the illegal practice of 527 groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections.

This bill is very 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 Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation. The new rules would prevent unlimited soft money from being channeled into Federal election activities by these Federal political committees.

Under the new rules that would be established under this bill, 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.

It is unfortunate that we even need to be here introducing this bill today. This legislation would not be necessary if the FEC would enforce existing law. 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 the 2004 Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws,

but, unfortunately, the FEC has failed to implement the regulations necessary to stop these illegal activities.

According to an analysis by campaign finance scholar Tony Corrado, federally oriented 527s spent $423 million to affect the outcome of 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. 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.

Opponents of campaign finance reform like to point out that the activities of these 527s serve as proof that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) has failed in its stated purpose, which is 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 Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 and the failure of the FEC to properly regulate the activities of these groups.

The bill Senator Feingold and I are introducing today is designed to 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 join my colleague, Senator Schumer, in sponsoring the ``Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual- Predators Act of 2007,'' otherwise known as the KIDS Act. This bill would require a convicted sex offender to register any e-mail address, instant message address or other similar Internet identifying information the sex offender uses or may use with the Department of Justice's National Sex Offender Registry. This information would then be made available to commercial social networking websites for the purpose of screening the website's user database to ensure convicted sex offenders are not using the website to prey on innocent children.

The Internet is likely the greatest invention of the 21st century; however, it has also brought ready access to millions of children by would be pedophiles. There are thousands of social networking websites and chat rooms where children post personal information about themselves hoping to connect with other children. Many children who access the Internet in a safe environment, such as their home or school, combined with the natural trust of a child, forget that they are sharing personal information with complete strangers. This allows strangers that a child would likely never speak with in the ``real world'' to prey on children more easily.

In a Pew Internet and American Life survey released earlier this month, 55 percent of adolescents polled said they have posted a profile on a social networking website, and 48 percent of adolescents polled say they visit a social networking website every day. These statistics prove that the fight to protect our children from sexual predators has moved from the playground to the Internet.

For this reason, Senator Schumer and I are introducing legislation that would enable social networking websites to protect their young users from convicted sex offenders. By requiring sex offenders to register e-mail addresses and other Internet identifying information with the Department of Justice, and allowing the Department to offer this information to commercial social networking websites, Congress is providing websites with the tools to come forth with innovative solutions to protect children. A similar proposal was included in S. 4089, the Stop the Exploitation of Our Children Act of 2006, which I introduced on December 6, 2006.

According to the same Pew Internet and American life survey, fully 85 percent of adolescents who have created an online profile say the profile they use or update most often is on MySpace, while 7 percent update a profile on Facebook. Consequently, I am pleased to report that both MySpace and Facebook endorse the KIDS Act. I look forward to other commercial social networking websites endorsing the bill and using the registry information after the bill is signed into law. Additionally, the bill is endorsed by the American Family Association. We all know that engaged parents are the best deterrent against sexual predators looking to prey on our children on the Internet. Parents that monitor their children's access to the Internet or are present when the child or adolescent is on-line are able to better ensure their children are not drawn into inappropriate online conversations with sexual predators.

Last week I received an e-mail from a police detective who investigates Internet sex crimes in Ohio. The detective gave his full endorsement for this legislation stating, ``What a great idea . . . [Congress] continues to arm us with great legislation to help protect our nation's children.'' I agree and

hope my colleagues will join with Senator Schumer and me in supporting this bill to give websites and law enforcement this important tool in their fight to protect our children.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Schumer, in sponsoring the ``Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual- Predators Act of 2007,'' otherwise known as the KIDS Act. This bill would require a convicted sex offender to register any e-mail address, instant message address or other similar Internet identifying information the sex offender uses or may use with the Department of Justice's National Sex Offender Registry. This information would then be made available to commercial social networking websites for the purpose of screening the website's user database to ensure convicted sex offenders are not using the website to prey on innocent children.

The Internet is likely the greatest invention of the 21st century; however, it has also brought ready access to millions of children by would be pedophiles. There are thousands of social networking websites and chat rooms where children post personal information about themselves hoping to connect with other children. Many children who access the Internet in a safe environment, such as their home or school, combined with the natural trust of a child, forget that they are sharing personal information with complete strangers. This allows strangers that a child would likely never speak with in the ``real world'' to prey on children more easily.

In a Pew Internet and American Life survey released earlier this month, 55 percent of adolescents polled said they have posted a profile on a social networking website, and 48 percent of adolescents polled say they visit a social networking website every day. These statistics prove that the fight to protect our children from sexual predators has moved from the playground to the Internet.

For this reason, Senator Schumer and I are introducing legislation that would enable social networking websites to protect their young users from convicted sex offenders. By requiring sex offenders to register e-mail addresses and other Internet identifying information with the Department of Justice, and allowing the Department to offer this information to commercial social networking websites, Congress is providing websites with the tools to come forth with innovative solutions to protect children. A similar proposal was included in S. 4089, the Stop the Exploitation of Our Children Act of 2006, which I introduced on December 6, 2006.

According to the same Pew Internet and American life survey, fully 85 percent of adolescents who have created an online profile say the profile they use or update most often is on MySpace, while 7 percent update a profile on Facebook. Consequently, I am pleased to report that both MySpace and Facebook endorse the KIDS Act. I look forward to other commercial social networking websites endorsing the bill and using the registry information after the bill is signed into law. Additionally, the bill is endorsed by the American Family Association. We all know that engaged parents are the best deterrent against sexual predators looking to prey on our children on the Internet. Parents that monitor their children's access to the Internet or are present when the child or adolescent is on-line are able to better ensure their children are not drawn into inappropriate online conversations with sexual predators.

Last week I received an e-mail from a police detective who investigates Internet sex crimes in Ohio. The detective gave his full endorsement for this legislation stating, ``What a great idea . . . [Congress] continues to arm us with great legislation to help protect our nation's children.'' I agree and

hope my colleagues will join with Senator Schumer and me in supporting this bill to give websites and law enforcement this important tool in their fight to protect our children.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Gregg and others in supporting this fiscally responsible amendment to provide the President authority to perform rescissions to legislation passed by Congress. Congress would then be required to review the President's recommendation within 8 days and affirm or reject the recommendation. Additionally, this amendment correctly requires the money from rescissions to be put toward deficit reduction.

Congress has grappled with the issue of providing the President with line-item veto or rescission authority since the original law was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1998. In the last Congress, there were at least eight bills introduced, including one I authored, attempting to provide the President with the authority to review and reject objectionable sections of legislation passed by Congress. It is my hope that during the 110th Congress we will provide the President with this important tool to combat porkbarrel spending and to reduce the deficit.

Just last night, President Bush delivered the annual State of the Union Address in which he stressed the need to impose spending discipline here in Washington by cutting the number earmarks. He is not the only President to address the country about the need to curtail wasteful porkbarrel spending.

In 1988, during his final State of the Union Address, President Ronald Reagan discussed the growth of earmarks and asked for line-item veto authority for future Presidents. On that evening, President Reagan carried with him three pieces of legislation: an appropriations bill that was 1,053 pages long and weighed 14 pounds; a budget reconciliation bill that was 1,186 pages long and weighed 15 pounds; and a continuing resolution that was 1,057 pages long and weighed 14 pounds.

In reference to the continuing resolution, President Reagan chided Congress, stating, ``Most of you in this Chamber didn't know what was in this catch-all bill and report.'' President Reagan then explained that millions of dollars for items such as cranberry research, blueberry research, the study of crawfish, and the commercialization of wild flowers were included in the continuing resolution ``tucked away behind a little comma here and there.''

In 1987, Ronald Reagan vetoed a highway bill because it had 157 earmarks. In the last Congress, a highway bill with 6,371 special projects costing the taxpayers $24 billion was enacted, despite my strong opposition. Those and other earmarks passed by Congress included $50 million for an indoor rainforest, $500,000 for a teapot museum, $350,000 for an Inner Harmony Foundation and Wellness Center, and $223 million for a ``Bridge to Nowhere.''

Unfortunately, this earmarking has not been limited to the highway bill. Nothing can compare to the out of control earmarking that has occurred in the annual appropriations measures during recent years. According to data gathered by Congressional Research Service, there were 4,126 earmarks in 1994. In 2005, there were 15,877--an increase of nearly 400 percent. There was a little good news in 2006, solely due to the fact that the Labor-HHS appropriations bill was approved almost entirely free of earmarks--an amazing feat given that there were over 3,000 earmarks the prior year in that bill. Despite this first reduction in 12 years, it doesn't change the fact that 2004, 2005, and 2006 produced the greatest number of earmarks in history.

Now, let's consider the level of funding associated with those earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion in 1994 to $64 billion in fiscal year 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34 percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks

decreased. Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000 and more than tripled in the last 10 years. This is wrong and disgraceful, and we urgently need to curtail this seemingly out of control porkbarreling practice that has become the norm around here.

President Reagan would be deeply disturbed to know that almost 20 years later, the size of spending bills has gotten much, much larger as we put more money toward porkbarrel projects. These earmarks have allowed the national debt to grow from over $5 trillion when President Reagan left office in January 1989 to over $8 trillion today. These statistics demonstrate clearly that the need for rescission authority is much greater than when President Reagan was in office.

President Reagan said to Congress during his 1988 State of the Union Address, ``Let's help ensure our future of prosperity by giving the President a tool that, though I will not get to use, is one I know future Presidents of either party must have. Give the President . . . the right to reach into massive appropriation bills, pare away the waste, and enforce budget discipline.'' This amendment would do just that. It would provide the President authority to identify wasteful items of spending and move to eliminate them from the Federal budget. This would be a significant and, unfortunately, all too rare move in Washington, DC, toward fiscal discipline.

Rescission authority alone is not the solution to the fiscal crisis we face in our Nation's Capitol. We also desperately need to reform our earmarking process and our lobbying practices and the legislation the Senate passed last week makes a number of positive improvements in those areas. But above all, we must remember that it is ultimately Congress's responsibility to control spending. However, granting the President line-item veto authority would go a long way toward restoring credibility to a system ravaged by congressional waste and special interest pork.

I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment.

Mr. President, I intend to support amendment No. 20 offered by my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett. This amendment would strike section 220, the grassroots reporting provision, from the bill.

Yesterday, during my statement on the need for comprehensive lobbying and ethics reform, I discussed the importance of an informed citizenry and how it is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. With this bill, we have an opportunity to balance the right of the public to know with its right to petition government; the ability of lobbyists' to advocate their clients' causes with the need for truthful public discourse; and the ability of Members to legislate with the imperative that our government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of confidence.

We have an obligation to address this crisis of confidence, but we also have an obligation to ensure that we do so in a thoughtful, reasoned, and constitutional manner. It is imperative that we be mindful of the rights of American citizens to freely contact their public officials and take part in the political process. After careful consideration, and much input from groups representing all parts of the political spectrum, it has become evident to me that section 220 of the underlying bill could seriously impact legitimate communications between public interest organizations and their members. That is why I will support the efforts of my colleague from Utah to strike section 220 from the bill.

It is my understanding that, under this provision, small organizations--many with no representation in Washington--would have to register as grassroots lobbying firms. These groups would then have to comply with onerous quarterly reporting requirements or face fines and criminal penalties. I do not think it was the intention of the proponents of this provision to restrict the ability of groups to communicate with their membership, but I have concluded that this could very well be the outcome.

The approach taken in the underlying bill is one of greater disclosure of and transparency into the interactions of lobbyists with our public officials. More transparency and disclosure of professional lobbyists' activities can only lead to better government. Unfortunately, section 220 simply goes too far, and I fear that the unintended consequences would negatively impact the legitimate, constitutionally protected activities of small citizen groups and their members.

Mr. President, the underlying substitute does include two provisions that are intended to address the out-of-control earmarking and porkbarrel spending of the past years. And, the adoption of the DeMint and Durbin amendments earlier this week have improved upon the underlying bill to ensure that all earmarks are disclosed--including those to Federal entities, as well as all that are included in statements of managers and conference reports. A number of us supported a similar proposal last year, and I am pleased that the effort was finally successful.

I am now pleased that additional improvements will be adopted with respect to section 1 of the underlying bill concerning out of scope matters in conference reports. The amendment sponsored by Senators Ensign, DeMint, and myself, which I understand is agreeable on both sides, would ensure that points of order can be raised against specific items in conference reports. It would add a definition of any matter so that members are empowered to remove out of scope earmarks and policy riders from conference reports without taking down the entire conference report. And, importantly, it would ensure that funding associated with any provision stricken from a conference report is reduced from the total amount appropriated--a critical requirement missing from the underlying measure.

For example, if a conference report provides $10 million for bridge improvements, but then adds a directive that $5 million of that funding should be directed to a specific bridge in a specific place--a directive that was not included in either the House or Senate bill, our amendment would ensure the $5 million that accompanies that out of scope earmark is also removed from the total allocation of the bill. So that the total appropriated would be $5 million, not $10 million. This is about fiscal restraint, Mr. President. It makes little sense to raise a point of order that is sustained against an out of scope earmark, but to appropriate the funding regardless.

While I support the improvements proposed and accepted so far, earmark reform still needs to go much further. We need to curtail earmarks, not just disclose them. The process is clearly broken when each year Congress continues to earmark billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, sometimes with virtually no information about the specifics of those earmarks. The scandal that came to light during the last Congress that involved earmarking by a former House member--now in prison--is a pox not just on him, but on each of us and the process that we have allowed to occur on our watch. The American public, Mr. President, deserves better. That is what this amendment is about.

The growth in earmarked funding in appropriations bills during the past 12 years has been staggering. According to data gathered by CRS, there were 4,126 earmarks in 1994. In 2005, there were 15,877--an increase of nearly 400 percent. There was a little good news in 2006, solely due to the fact that the Labor-HHS appropriations bill was approved almost entirely free of earmarks--an amazing feat given that there were over 3,000 earmarks the prior year for just that bill. Despite this first reduction in 12 years, it doesn't change the fact that the largest number of earmarks in history have still occurred in the last three years--2004, 2005, and 2006.

Now, let's consider the level of funding associated with those earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion in 1994 to $64 billion in fiscal year 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34 percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks decreased. Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more than tripled in the last 10 years. This is wrong and disgraceful and we urgently need to curtail this seemingly out of control pork barreling practice that has become the norm around here.

I filed an amendment designed to curtail earmarking. I was pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold and Graham in introducing amendment No. 29. Unfortunately, it is clear that we will not be given an opportunity to vote on that amendment and I find myself in the same position as I was in last March during debate on lobbying reform when I was not allowed a vote on my amendment. But one day soon, I am confident we will fundamentally change business as usual with respect to pork barrel spending. The American public has a powerful voice, and I would have thought more of us would have heard that voice last November. But I do want to state my recognition that at least some improvements have been made to require full disclosure of all earmarks and to prevent out of scope matters in conference. And, I believe the Ensign, McCain, DeMint amendment makes further improvements.

Amendment No. 41

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

Madam President, we, as Members of Congress, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public's faith and confidence in Congress. An informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. And, a democratic Government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. With this bill, we have an opportunity to balance the right of the public to know with its right to petition Government; the ability of lobbyists to advocate their clients' causes with the need for truthful public discourse; and the ability of Members to legislate with the imperative that our Government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of confidence.

I am pleased with the progress we have been making on this bill. We have been having a good debate on a range of proposals to further improve this bill, including requirements to reign in wasteful spending such as by more fully disclosing earmarks and granting the President's enhanced recision authority. We have recognized the need for increased disclosure and more timely reporting of lobbyists' activities. And, I am pleased that we are considering an amendment--one that I fully support--to require Members of Congress who use corporate aircraft to reimburse the full charter rate for a flight, instead of simply paying the cost of a first-class ticket, as required under the current rules. These are all solid proposals, but we need to do more.

Madam President, on this issue of the first-class airfare, I don't think there is a more dramatic example of the difference between we Members of Congress and the average American citizen. No American citizen can today call up a corporation and say: Please let me use your airplane, and, by the way, I am only going to pay first-class airfare. Nothing is more egregious. There are worse abuses that go on around here, but there is no more egregious an example than the ability of a Member of Congress, who many times has oversight of the corporation that provides the aircraft, taking advantage of a situation where they only have to pay first-class airfare, with a difference of sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. It is remarkable.

We need to reform earmarking beyond mere disclosure requirements. We need to curtail this practice, which cost American taxpayers $64 billion in FY 2006, and I have offered an amendment to help do that. Above all, we need to ensure the enactment and enforcement of comprehensive lobbyist, ethics and earmark reforms. That is why we need to establish an Office of Public Integrity to help provide enforcement measures for the reforms that we are advocating. We can pass all the rules changes we want but unless we back them up with a tough enforcement mechanism, they are useless.

On the issue of earmarks, Madam President--and I obviously have a long record of being opposed to these egregious examples of porkbarreling--I think that it is important for us to recognize that there are two ways we can address earmarking. One is to eliminate them and the other is to watch them grow. Over the previous 20 years, I have watched them grow and grow and grow and grow.

I was intrigued by getting a call from an administration official who said the President is for cutting them in half. That is like saying we want to cut half of the drug dealers in America. There is an addiction in Congress to porkbarreling, and we have to cure the addiction or it will continue to grow.

It is because of this need that I am pleased to again join my colleagues, Senators Lieberman and Collins, in cosponsoring an amendment to create an Office of Public Intergrity to investigate complaints of ethical violations by Senators, staff, or officers of this Chamber. Headed by a Director appointed by the President pro tem of the Senate upon the joint recommendation of the majority and minority leaders, the Office of Public Integrity would investigate complaints of rules violations filed with or initiated by the office. To ensure swift action, within 30 days of receiving a complaint, the office would be required to make an initial determination whether to dismiss or investigate it. Although a determination by the office to investigate may be overridden by the Select Committee on Ethics, the amendment stipulates that this can occur only if the Ethics Committee overrides the decision by a two-thirds vote and makes this vote public.

To assist it in its investigation, the Office of Public Integrity would be empowered to issue subpoenas, take statements, and compel the attendance of witnesses. If, after investigation, the Director of the office determines that there is probable cause that a violation occurred, he or she must inform the Ethics Committee, which again, can decide not to proceed on a complaint, but only upon a two-thirds vote that must be made public. If the Ethics Committee does not overrule the office's determination of probable cause, the office shall present the case to the Ethics Committee which shall vote on whether the subject of the investigation violated any rules or other standards. Again, this vote must be made public. If the Ethics Committee finds there was a violation, the Director of the Office of Public Integrity shall recommend appropriate sanctions and whether the matter should be referred to the Department of Justice for investigation.

For 2 years, the Committee on Indian Affairs which I chaired at the time, investigated the actions of Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, and

brought to light their efforts to manipulate the political process. If there is a silver lining to the Abramoff affair, it is that it helped to compel Congress to reassess the rules that govern our dealings with lobbyists and others who seek to influence us, and to do so through the eyes of the public, not through our own jaundiced perspectives. Frankly, I also believe the American public sent a clear message that business as usual in an unacceptable proposition. That is what drives our amendment today.

Again, I point out that we investigated in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs Mr. Abramoff and his connection, frankly, with both sides of the Capitol. There was never an Ethics Committee investigation. It was the Justice Department that finally had to take action. There was ample evidence of misbehavior in violation of the rules of both Houses, and here we are with people in jail and, as far as I know, the Ethics Committee never ruled on their behavior. So when I hear people say the Office of Public Integrity would somehow cause us embarrassment, are we not embarrassed by what already happened? Are we not embarrassed that Members of Congress violated their oath of office to the degree that they are in jail and the investigation continued on the part of the Justice Department?

I say to the opponents of this amendment, in a perfect world, maybe you are right. In the world that we live in today, you are not right. We owe the American public a better system than the one that has been in place for the past several years.

While strengthening the Senate rules regarding disclosure, gifts, meals, travel and post-employment lobbying is necessary and overdue, it is also of little importance if the rules are not enforced. Instances of apparent violations of congressional rules by Members and staff who were the beneficiaries of Mr. Abramoff's largesse were widely reported. Press accounts of luxury trips, high-priced tickets to sporting events, meals at expensive restaurants, and other gifts suggest that there had been flagrant, if not widespread, violations of our rules, and that these violations had been occurring for some time.

As the columnist and scholar Norman Ornstein has observed, Congress has ``regularly struggled with its constitutional responsibility to police itself, sometimes verging on partisan vendettas--what we called in the 1980s and 1990s `the criminalization of partisan differences'-- but more often erring on the side of doing nothing, or as little as humanly possible, to deal with ethical violations.''

At a time when the public is demanding change, the Senate needs to more aggressively enforce its own rules. We should do this not just by making more public the work that the Senate Ethics Committee currently undertakes, but by addressing the conflict that is inherent in any body that regulates itself. By creating, as this amendment would do, a new office with the capacity to conduct and initiate investigations, and a perspective uncolored by partisan concerns or collegial relationships, I believe we can address this long-standing structural problem.

This amendment strikes a good balance by keeping with the Select Committee on Ethics the final decisions on whether to conduct an investigation, whether a violation has occurred, and whether to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, while adding an independent voice to the process to ensure that the reputation of the institution is not sacrificed for the understandable concern for the reputation of one's friends and colleagues.

The Office of Public Integrity would not only assist in performing existing investigative functions, but would also be charged with the new function of approving or denying requests for travel by Members and staff. The purpose of this pre-clearance is to ensure that the trips serve a legitimate Governmental interest, and are not substantially recreational in nature. I believe that the Office of Public Integrity would be an appropriate entity to conduct these reviews.

I urge the majority and minority leaders to allow an up or down vote on this amendment. The American public is watching.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by Senator Lieberman.

Madam President, there are many organizations that are observing our activities. I think, as I said earlier, we can be pleased at some of the progress we are making. But this would be a seminal vote. This will be an indication that we are really serious, if we are really serious, about making sure that decisions made by the Ethics Committee are untainted by personal relationships or by other factors. I think it is long overdue.

I want to point out again that in the exit polling from the 2006 election there were two major issues that affected the voters' opinion and vote. One, as we all know, was the war in Iraq. The other was the issue of ``corruption in Washington.''

The American public are very dissatisfied with the way Congress conducts its business. I have seen polls in the low twenties and even in the high teens of their approval rating of Congress. They don't think we conduct our business in an honest and straightforward manner, and they believe the special interests have way too much influence in determining both our priorities and the outcome of legislation.

I believe the Lieberman amendment can go a long way toward restoring the very badly tarnished image of the Congress of the United States.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Salazar in reintroducing the Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act. A similar version of this bill was introduced by Congresswoman Hilda Solis last week. This legislation, which is identical to the bill we introduced in the 109th Congress and passed the Senate by unanimous consent during the 108th Congress, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Chavez. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites significant to Chavez's life meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for future legislation that would then designate land for the appropriate sites to become historic landmarks.

Mr. Chavez's legacy is an inspiration to us all and he will be remembered for helping Americans to transcend distinctions of experience and share equally in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. It is important that we honor his struggle and do what we can to preserve appropriate landmarks that are significant to his life. This legislation has received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my fellow Arizonans, but from Americans all across the Nation. It has also received an endorsement from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Cesar Chavez, an Arizonan born in Yuma, was the son of migrant farm workers. While his formal education ended in the eighth grade, his insatiable intellectual curiosity and determination helped make him known as one of the great American leaders for his successes in ensuring migrant farm workers were treated fairly and honestly. His efforts on behalf of some of the most oppressed individuals in our society is an inspiration, and through his work he made America a bigger and better nation.

While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a advocate of migrant farm workers. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which later became the United Farm Workers of America. He gave a voice to those who had no voice. In his words, ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community . . . our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.''

Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. His motto in life ``It Can Be Done,'' epitomizes his life's work and continues to be a positive influence on so many of us. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Salazar in reintroducing the Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act. A similar version of this bill was introduced by Congresswoman Hilda Solis last week. This legislation, which is identical to the bill we introduced in the 109th Congress and passed the Senate by unanimous consent during the 108th Congress, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Chavez. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites significant to Chavez's life meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for future legislation that would then designate land for the appropriate sites to become historic landmarks.

Mr. Chavez's legacy is an inspiration to us all and he will be remembered for helping Americans to transcend distinctions of experience and share equally in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. It is important that we honor his struggle and do what we can to preserve appropriate landmarks that are significant to his life. This legislation has received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my fellow Arizonans, but from Americans all across the Nation. It has also received an endorsement from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Cesar Chavez, an Arizonan born in Yuma, was the son of migrant farm workers. While his formal education ended in the eighth grade, his insatiable intellectual curiosity and determination helped make him known as one of the great American leaders for his successes in ensuring migrant farm workers were treated fairly and honestly. His efforts on behalf of some of the most oppressed individuals in our society is an inspiration, and through his work he made America a bigger and better nation.

While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a advocate of migrant farm workers. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which later became the United Farm Workers of America. He gave a voice to those who had no voice. In his words, ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community . . . our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.''

Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. His motto in life ``It Can Be Done,'' epitomizes his life's work and continues to be a positive influence on so many of us. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman today, along with our co-sponsors, Senators Snowe, Obama, Collins, and Lincoln, in introducing the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. This legislation is designed to significantly reduce the Nation's greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the dangerous impacts of climate change, enhance our national security and maintain the strength to our economy. It would be accomplished through a combination of trading markets and the deployment of advanced technologies.

As I have stated on previous occasions, the design of this legislation is an evolving process. The legislation we are introducing today represents yet another step in that effort. Since our last vote on this legislation, Senator Lieberman and I have continued work on this proposal with the goal of producing the most innovative, meaningful, and economically feasible measure that can be embraced by the Senate. We believe the changes which we have made since we first introduced climate change legislation in the 108th Congress puts us on the path to achieving this goal, and we intend to make further improvements to this comprehensive legislation in the days ahead.

We have continually worked with scientists, industry, environmentalists, as well as the faith-based community, to ensure that we are fully addressing the serious problem of global warming. We continue to learn more about the science and the impacts of climate change on a daily basis. We continue to work with economists and industry experts to ensure that our emissions goals do not hamstring our economic objectives. In particular, we continue to learn more about the power of the markets to control costs as emission credit trading continues in Europe and here in the U.S. I am confident that given the will, the Federal Government can be a lead advocate for ensuring that America is doing its part to reduce global warming, and join in the global effort that is needed to address this world-wide environmental issue.

I want to mention the efforts of States like California, which has already enacted legislation requiring mandatory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Northeast States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont, which are also seeking to limit emissions from power plants. Over 300 U.S. mayors have signed an agreement to reduce emissions in their cities.

As these State plans and legislation are implemented, they will offer Congress and the Administration unique opportunities to review and incorporate lessons learned from these efforts into Federal legislation. Despite the improvements we have made in this version of our bill to be environmentally responsible and to minimize economic costs, we will continue to pursue new and innovative ideas that will further these objectives, and we will modify our bill accordingly.

The legislation we submit today is designed to protect our environment from the impacts of the climate change resulting from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, improve our national security by reducing reliance on fossil fuels that often carry with them geopolitical costs, and position our economy to become a world leader in the expanding markets for development and deployment of new energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources. It proposes the utilization of the ``cap and trade'' approach and promotes the commercialization of technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and increase the nation's energy independence. And it will help to keep America at the cutting edge of innovation where the jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy are to be found. It will also serve to protect our country and the world from the security threat posed by populations whose health, livelihood, and variability are potentially threatened by global rising temperatures and altered environments.

In fact, the cap and trade provisions and the technology title are complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will allow us to usher in a new energy era, an era of responsible and innovative energy production and use that will yield enormous environmental, economic, and diplomatic benefits. The cap and trade portion provides the economic driver for existing and new technologies capable of supplying reliable and clean energy and making the best use of America's available energy resources. Because of the multiple benefits promised by this comprehensive program, we expect that the new bill will attract additional support for the vital purposes of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. We simply need the political will to match the public's concern about climate change, desire for national security, the economic interests of business and consumers, and American technological ingenuity and expertise.

As I mentioned, we continue to learn more about the science of climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed. Our National Academies of Sciences, along with the national academies from the other G8 nations, China, India, and Brazil, has said in a joint statement that ``there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.'' and ``[t] he scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.''

We recognize that many fear the costs of taking action. But there are costs to delay as well. Failure to implement significant reductions in net

greenhouse gas emissions in the near term will yield only more climate change and a much harder job in the future. Our comprehensive legislation is one approach to a productive, secure, and clean energy future. But it is only one approach and we welcome other proposals--let a thousand flowers bloom.

Significant reductions in greenhouse gases--well beyond those required by this bill--are feasible over the next 15-20 years using technologies available today. Also, the most important technological deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the next two decades lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources, including nuclear, solar, wind, and bio-fuels. For example, in the electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions, major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving the efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors designs for nuclear power, expanding use of renewable power sources, and significantly reducing electricity demand with the use of energy-saving technologies currently available to residential and commercial consumers. These clean technologies need to be promoted and that is what spurs our action today.

Let me take a moment to address a section of our legislation that has been the target of some concerns by environmentalists and others-- concerns that I believe are entirely unwarranted. The provisions in our bill to promote nuclear energy are an important part of the comprehensive technology package.

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

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

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

As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S. electricity produced by this zero-emission technology will actually decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not replaced with higher-emitting alternatives.

No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the Federal Government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize new and beneficial energy technologies, and particularly nuclear designs. We understand the power of markets to spur innovation and our proposals is built on this fundamental lesson. But the fact remains that the market playing field has been highly uneven--fossil fuels have been subsidized for many decades at levels that can scarcely be calculated. The enormous economic costs of damage caused by air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil- fueled technologies. Yet, it's a cost that we all bear, too often in terms of ill-health and diminished quality of life. That is simply a matter of fact.

It is also inescapable that the ability to avoid internalizing these costs placed produces at a great advantage over clean competitors. Based on that fact, and in light of the enormous environmental and economic risk posed by global warming, I believe that providing zero and low emission technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market place so that these clean technologies can be utilized as soon as possible is responsible public policy, and a matter of simple public necessity, particularly, as we work to promote America's energy independence.

The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarines for more than 50 years and has an impressive safety and performance record. The Naval Reactors program has demonstrated that nuclear power can be done safely. One of the underpinning of its safety record is the approach used in its reactor designs, which is to learn and built upon previous designs. Unfortunately for the commercial nuclear industry, they have not had the opportunity to use such an approach since the industry has not been able to build a reactor in over the past 25 years. This lapse in construction has led us to where we are today with the industry's aging infrastructure. As we have learned from other industries, this in itself represents a great risk to public safety.

As Senator Lieberman and I have continued working for passage of legislation to address climate change in a meaningful way, it has become clear to us that any responsible climate change measure must contain five essential components:

First, it must have rational, mandatory emission reduction targets and timetables. It must be goal oriented, and has both environmental and economic integrity. We need policy that will produce necessary outcomes, not merely check political boxes. The goal must be feasible and based on sound science, and this is what we have tried to do in this bill.

Second, it must utilize a market-based cap and trade system. It must limit greenhouse gas emissions and allows the trading of emission credits to drive enterprise, innovation and efficiency. This is the central component of our legislation. Voluntary efforts will not change the status quo, taxes are counterproductive, and markets are more dependable than regulators in effecting sustainable change.

Third, it must include mechanisms to minimize costs and work effectively with other markets. The ``trade'' part of ``cap and trade'' is such a mechanism, but it's clear it must be bolstered by other assurances that costs will be minimized. I am as concerned as anyone about the economic impacts associated with any climate change legislation. I know that many economists are developing increasingly sophisticated ways to project future costs of compliance. Lately, we have seen the increased interest in this area of research. As we learn more from these models about additional action items to further reduce costs, we intend to incorporate them. Already, based upon earlier economic analysis, we have added ``offsets'' provisions in this bill in an effort to minimize costs and to provide for the creation of new markets. And, I assure my colleagues, we will continue to seek new and innovative ways to further minimize costs.

Fourth, it must spur the development and deployment of advanced technology. Nuclear, solar, and other alternative energy must be part of the equation and we need a dedicated national commitment to develop and bring to market the technologies of the future as a matter of good environmental and economic policy. There will be a growing global market for these technologies and the U.S. will benefit greatly from being competitive and capturing its share of these markets. This legislation includes a detailed technology title that would go a long way toward meeting this goal. Unlike the Energy bill, it would be funded using the proceeds from the auctioning of allowable emission credits, rather than from the use of taxpayers' funds or appropriations that will never materialize.

And fifth, it must facilitate international efforts to solve the problem. Global warming is an international problem requiring an international effort. The United States has an obligation to lead. Our leadership cannot replace the need for action by countries such as India and China. We must spur and facilitate it. We have added provisions that would allow U.S. companies to enter into partnerships in developing countries for the purpose of conducting projects to achieve certified emission reductions, which may be traded on the international market.

These five components represent a serious challenge that will require a great deal of effort, the concentration of substantial intellectual power, and the continued efforts of our colleagues and those in the environmental, industry, economic, and national security communities. We look forward to collaborating in this effort as we continue to shape our legislation to its most effective form.

The status quo is a strong and stubborn force. People and institutions are averse to change, even when that change is critical for their own well-being, and that of their children and grandchildren. If the scientists are right and temperatures continue to rise, we could face environmental, economic, and national security consequences far beyond our ability to imagine. If they are wrong and the Earth finds a way to compensate for the unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, what will we have accomplished? Cleaner air; greater energy efficiency, a more diverse and secure energy mix, and U.S. leadership in the technologies of the future. There is no doubt; failure to act is the far greater risk.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman today, along with our co-sponsors, Senators Snowe, Obama, Collins, and Lincoln, in introducing the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. This legislation is designed to significantly reduce the Nation's greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the dangerous impacts of climate change, enhance our national security and maintain the strength to our economy. It would be accomplished through a combination of trading markets and the deployment of advanced technologies.

As I have stated on previous occasions, the design of this legislation is an evolving process. The legislation we are introducing today represents yet another step in that effort. Since our last vote on this legislation, Senator Lieberman and I have continued work on this proposal with the goal of producing the most innovative, meaningful, and economically feasible measure that can be embraced by the Senate. We believe the changes which we have made since we first introduced climate change legislation in the 108th Congress puts us on the path to achieving this goal, and we intend to make further improvements to this comprehensive legislation in the days ahead.

We have continually worked with scientists, industry, environmentalists, as well as the faith-based community, to ensure that we are fully addressing the serious problem of global warming. We continue to learn more about the science and the impacts of climate change on a daily basis. We continue to work with economists and industry experts to ensure that our emissions goals do not hamstring our economic objectives. In particular, we continue to learn more about the power of the markets to control costs as emission credit trading continues in Europe and here in the U.S. I am confident that given the will, the Federal Government can be a lead advocate for ensuring that America is doing its part to reduce global warming, and join in the global effort that is needed to address this world-wide environmental issue.

I want to mention the efforts of States like California, which has already enacted legislation requiring mandatory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Northeast States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont, which are also seeking to limit emissions from power plants. Over 300 U.S. mayors have signed an agreement to reduce emissions in their cities.

As these State plans and legislation are implemented, they will offer Congress and the Administration unique opportunities to review and incorporate lessons learned from these efforts into Federal legislation. Despite the improvements we have made in this version of our bill to be environmentally responsible and to minimize economic costs, we will continue to pursue new and innovative ideas that will further these objectives, and we will modify our bill accordingly.

The legislation we submit today is designed to protect our environment from the impacts of the climate change resulting from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, improve our national security by reducing reliance on fossil fuels that often carry with them geopolitical costs, and position our economy to become a world leader in the expanding markets for development and deployment of new energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources. It proposes the utilization of the ``cap and trade'' approach and promotes the commercialization of technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and increase the nation's energy independence. And it will help to keep America at the cutting edge of innovation where the jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy are to be found. It will also serve to protect our country and the world from the security threat posed by populations whose health, livelihood, and variability are potentially threatened by global rising temperatures and altered environments.

In fact, the cap and trade provisions and the technology title are complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will allow us to usher in a new energy era, an era of responsible and innovative energy production and use that will yield enormous environmental, economic, and diplomatic benefits. The cap and trade portion provides the economic driver for existing and new technologies capable of supplying reliable and clean energy and making the best use of America's available energy resources. Because of the multiple benefits promised by this comprehensive program, we expect that the new bill will attract additional support for the vital purposes of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. We simply need the political will to match the public's concern about climate change, desire for national security, the economic interests of business and consumers, and American technological ingenuity and expertise.

As I mentioned, we continue to learn more about the science of climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant action is needed. Our National Academies of Sciences, along with the national academies from the other G8 nations, China, India, and Brazil, has said in a joint statement that ``there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.'' and ``[t] he scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.''

We recognize that many fear the costs of taking action. But there are costs to delay as well. Failure to implement significant reductions in net

greenhouse gas emissions in the near term will yield only more climate change and a much harder job in the future. Our comprehensive legislation is one approach to a productive, secure, and clean energy future. But it is only one approach and we welcome other proposals--let a thousand flowers bloom.

Significant reductions in greenhouse gases--well beyond those required by this bill--are feasible over the next 15-20 years using technologies available today. Also, the most important technological deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the next two decades lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources, including nuclear, solar, wind, and bio-fuels. For example, in the electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions, major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving the efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors designs for nuclear power, expanding use of renewable power sources, and significantly reducing electricity demand with the use of energy-saving technologies currently available to residential and commercial consumers. These clean technologies need to be promoted and that is what spurs our action today.

Let me take a moment to address a section of our legislation that has been the target of some concerns by environmentalists and others-- concerns that I believe are entirely unwarranted. The provisions in our bill to promote nuclear energy are an important part of the comprehensive technology package.

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

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

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

As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S. electricity produced by this zero-emission technology will actually decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not replaced with higher-emitting alternatives.

No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the Federal Government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize new and beneficial energy technologies, and particularly nuclear designs. We understand the power of markets to spur innovation and our proposals is built on this fundamental lesson. But the fact remains that the market playing field has been highly uneven--fossil fuels have been subsidized for many decades at levels that can scarcely be calculated. The enormous economic costs of damage caused by air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil- fueled technologies. Yet, it's a cost that we all bear, too often in terms of ill-health and diminished quality of life. That is simply a matter of fact.

It is also inescapable that the ability to avoid internalizing these costs placed produces at a great advantage over clean competitors. Based on that fact, and in light of the enormous environmental and economic risk posed by global warming, I believe that providing zero and low emission technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market place so that these clean technologies can be utilized as soon as possible is responsible public policy, and a matter of simple public necessity, particularly, as we work to promote America's energy independence.

The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarines for more than 50 years and has an impressive safety and performance record. The Naval Reactors program has demonstrated that nuclear power can be done safely. One of the underpinning of its safety record is the approach used in its reactor designs, which is to learn and built upon previous designs. Unfortunately for the commercial nuclear industry, they have not had the opportunity to use such an approach since the industry has not been able to build a reactor in over the past 25 years. This lapse in construction has led us to where we are today with the industry's aging infrastructure. As we have learned from other industries, this in itself represents a great risk to public safety.

As Senator Lieberman and I have continued working for passage of legislation to address climate change in a meaningful way, it has become clear to us that any responsible climate change measure must contain five essential components:

First, it must have rational, mandatory emission reduction targets and timetables. It must be goal oriented, and has both environmental and economic integrity. We need policy that will produce necessary outcomes, not merely check political boxes. The goal must be feasible and based on sound science, and this is what we have tried to do in this bill.

Second, it must utilize a market-based cap and trade system. It must limit greenhouse gas emissions and allows the trading of emission credits to drive enterprise, innovation and efficiency. This is the central component of our legislation. Voluntary efforts will not change the status quo, taxes are counterproductive, and markets are more dependable than regulators in effecting sustainable change.

Third, it must include mechanisms to minimize costs and work effectively with other markets. The ``trade'' part of ``cap and trade'' is such a mechanism, but it's clear it must be bolstered by other assurances that costs will be minimized. I am as concerned as anyone about the economic impacts associated with any climate change legislation. I know that many economists are developing increasingly sophisticated ways to project future costs of compliance. Lately, we have seen the increased interest in this area of research. As we learn more from these models about additional action items to further reduce costs, we intend to incorporate them. Already, based upon earlier economic analysis, we have added ``offsets'' provisions in this bill in an effort to minimize costs and to provide for the creation of new markets. And, I assure my colleagues, we will continue to seek new and innovative ways to further minimize costs.

Fourth, it must spur the development and deployment of advanced technology. Nuclear, solar, and other alternative energy must be part of the equation and we need a dedicated national commitment to develop and bring to market the technologies of the future as a matter of good environmental and economic policy. There will be a growing global market for these technologies and the U.S. will benefit greatly from being competitive and capturing its share of these markets. This legislation includes a detailed technology title that would go a long way toward meeting this goal. Unlike the Energy bill, it would be funded using the proceeds from the auctioning of allowable emission credits, rather than from the use of taxpayers' funds or appropriations that will never materialize.

And fifth, it must facilitate international efforts to solve the problem. Global warming is an international problem requiring an international effort. The United States has an obligation to lead. Our leadership cannot replace the need for action by countries such as India and China. We must spur and facilitate it. We have added provisions that would allow U.S. companies to enter into partnerships in developing countries for the purpose of conducting projects to achieve certified emission reductions, which may be traded on the international market.

These five components represent a serious challenge that will require a great deal of effort, the concentration of substantial intellectual power, and the continued efforts of our colleagues and those in the environmental, industry, economic, and national security communities. We look forward to collaborating in this effort as we continue to shape our legislation to its most effective form.

The status quo is a strong and stubborn force. People and institutions are averse to change, even when that change is critical for their own well-being, and that of their children and grandchildren. If the scientists are right and temperatures continue to rise, we could face environmental, economic, and national security consequences far beyond our ability to imagine. If they are wrong and the Earth finds a way to compensate for the unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, what will we have accomplished? Cleaner air; greater energy efficiency, a more diverse and secure energy mix, and U.S. leadership in the technologies of the future. There is no doubt; failure to act is the far greater risk.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Wyden and Sununu in introducing the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007. This bill would ensure that consumers never have to pay a toll when they access the Information Highway. Whether consumers log onto the Internet using cable modem, DSL, dial-up or wireless services, under this bill, they will not be taxed by any State or local governments for their Internet usage.

Keeping Internet access affordable to all Americans is a worthy policy goal. The Internet has become a fixture and core component of modem American life that has created and continues to generate social and economic opportunities throughout the United States.

In 1998, Congress put in place a temporary ban on any State or local taxes on Internet access. Additionally, Congress placed a moratorium on multiple or discriminatory State and local taxes on e-commerce transactions to ensure the growth of online commerce. This moratorium was extended in 2004, but is set to expire November 1, 2007. Our legislation, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007, would make the moratorium permanent.

Today, the U.S. ranks 12th in the world in per capita Internet access, lagging behind competitors South Korea, the United Kingdom and Canada. This is absolutely unacceptable for a country that leads the world in technical innovation, economic development, and international competitiveness. We certainly cannot afford to make Internet access more difficult to obtain if we want to become more internationally competitive.

There is little doubt that the development and growth of the Internet was aided by the tax moratorium. In 1998, the year the moratorium was first enacted, 36 percent of U.S. adults reported using the Internet. In 2006, that number grew to 73 percent, an all time high according to an April 2006 Pew Internet & American Life Project Report. However, the report also found that Americans in the lowest income households are considerably less likely to be online. Just 55 percent of adults living in households with less than $30,000 annual income go online, versus 73 percent of those whose income is between $30,000-$50,000. This ``digital divide'' needs to be closed immediately. Continuing Congress's policy of reducing the cost of Internet access, by preventing the service from being taxed, is one step we can take now to close the ``digital divide.''

As use of the Internet has grown, so has e-commerce. According to the most recent comScore Networks report, Americans spent over $100 billion on Internet purchases during 2006, a major milestone for retailers and the World Wide Web. This legislation would ensure that online transactions are not taxed by cities or States at a rate higher than other sales transactions. Again, the goal of this legislation is to make the Internet affordable to all

Americans and foster the growth of the Internet.

With respect to the question of whether it is wise to make Internet access tax free, Congress has a long history of giving tax incentives to commercial activities that we believe help our society. The Internet is a technology that is a source of and vehicle for significant economic benefits. The proponents of this legislation strongly believe the Internet clearly merits the tax incentives provided by this bill.

I recognize that there are some who wish to continue to make the Internet tax moratorium temporary. Their premise is that the Internet will continue to evolve and thus Internet access may develop into a service the States and localities would wish to tax. I believe that this moratorium should be permanent to continue encouraging those very Internet-related innovations. By making the moratorium permanent, businesses that invest in and provide Internet access will be able to operate in a predictable tax environment. This will result in continued investment in this very important social, political and economic medium.

Congress now has the opportunity to extend permanently the Internet tax moratorium and assure consumers that taxes will not inhibit the offering of affordable Internet access. By supporting this legislation, we can continue to promote Internet usage by Americans as well as encourage innovation relating to this technology. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this pro-consumer, pro-innovation, and pro-technology bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator DeMint

in introducing the Cell Phone Tax Moratorium Act of 2007. This bill would put a stop to new discriminatory taxes on cell phone services for a period of 3 years.

The average general sales tax in the U.S. today is around six percent, but the average State and local taxes and fees on cell phone service comes in at about 17 percent. Consumers are left paying a hefty portion of their monthly cell phone bill to the Government for what many believe is their most important communications device.

The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors' Association have issued policy positions calling for states to eliminate excessive and discriminatory taxes on communications services. State and local governments have been working with the telecommunications industry to find a solution to these excessive taxes, but no agreement has been reached. During the three year moratorium, it is my hope that State and local governments--in cooperation with industry--will work to eliminate discriminatory taxes and fees on wireless services.

Excessive taxes dampen innovation, and are regressive, hitting the most vulnerable customers the hardest. Although more then 72 percent of all Americans own a cell phone, 26 percent said they could not live without it because it is their only communications source, according to a recent Pew Internet and Life Project report. Cell phone only owners are often those who find it difficult to afford a wired and a wireless phone. Additionally, according to the same report, 74 percent of the Americans say they have used their cell phone in an emergency and gained valuable assistance.

Some State and local governments cannot move beyond the idea that wireless services are some kind of luxury item that can be taxed at a higher rate. These services may have been a luxury item many years ago, but due to deregulation wireless services are more affordable than ever and even necessary for personal or business reasons. This is why it is perplexing that some states burden cell phone subscribers with taxes and fees that can be as high as 24 percent of a consumer's total bill.

Tax rates as high as this are generally associated with cigarettes and alcohol and known as ``sin taxes'' designed to reduce consumption. I cannot imagine it is the intention of states and localities to reduce consumption of wireless services.

Mindful of the revenue requirements of States and localities, this bill does not eliminate existing discriminatory taxes. Nor does the bill prohibit states and localities from imposing new taxes on wireless services that are not discriminatory. The bill simply puts a stop to the creation of new discriminatory taxes on cell phone services.

Last year I introduced similar legislative language during a mark-up in the Senate Commerce Committee. The amendment passed with a vote 21- 1. I am hopeful that this bill will once again be supported by the Commerce Committee and that it will be approved by the full Senate. I ask my colleagues to join me in ending the discriminatory sales taxes on this very popular communications service.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Collins, and Lieberman in introducing a bill to provide greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government, and to ensure greater accountability among public officials.

The legislation proposes a number of important and necessary reforms. It would provide for faster reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and their employers under current law. It would require greater disclosure of lobbyists' contributions and payments to lawmakers and entities associated with them, as well as fundraising and other events they host. the bill also would require greater disclosure from both lobbyists, and Members and employees of Congress, of travel that is arranged or financed by a lobbyist or his client.

To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and the private sector, the bill would strengthen the lobbying restrictions on former senior members of the Executive Branch, former Members of Congress, and former senior congressional staff. It would require that Members publicly disclose negotiations they are having with prospective private employers to ensure there is no conflict of interests. The bill also would modify the provision in current law that exempts former Federal employees who go to work for Indian tribes as outside lobbyists and agents from the revolving door laws.

The bill would prohibit all gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and their staff. To ensure that such a ban is not circumvented, the bill also would require Members of Congress and their staff to pay the fair market value for travel on private planes and the fair market value of sports and entertainment tickets. Members and staff would also have to post the details of their privately-sponsored work trips on-line for public inspection.

The bill would establish an independent, non-partisan Office of Public Integrity. Armed with a number of investigative tools, the Office of Public Integrity would investigate alleged misconduct by Members and their staff and make appropriate recommendations to the Senate Ethics Committee for final disposition.

Finally, the bill would help us combat wasteful, porkbarrel spending. It would amend Congressional rules to allow lawmakers to challenge unauthorized appropriations, earmarks, and policy riders in appropriations bills.

Mr. President, when I introduced similar legislation over a year ago, I regretted that such reform was even necessary. And, I voted against the bill that was ultimately passed in the Senate because it lacked a number of elements essential to true reform.

Unfortunately, the need for such reform has only become more acute. The American people's faith and confidence in this venerable institution has steadily eroded. The day after the mid-term elections, CNN reported that, according to national exit polls, voters were concerned about corruption and ethics in Government more than any other issue. I can tell you the polls, if not spot on, are not far off.

During my travels around the country last year, it quickly became clear that there is a deep perception that we legislators do not act on the priorities of the American people, that special interests, and not the people's interests, guide our legislative hand. This loss in confidence is not limited to a single party or ideology; rather, it cuts across the spectrum. It is a perception bred by recent Congressional failures and scandals, which I need not chronicle here.

We can begin to restore faith in this institution by divesting ourselves of some of the perks and privileges that have somehow crept into public service. Take, for example, free meals and sports and entertainment tickets. The American people have rightfully come to see the abuse of such perks as a corrupting influence. In a string of guilty pleas last year, several lobbyists, former congressional aides, and a congressman admitted that such gifts were used as bribes. Quite frankly, there is no good reason why Members of Congress and their staff cannot forgo such gifts from lobbyists. No one would seriously contend that they are necessary for us to conduct the people's business. A total gift ban would go a long way towards restoring the public's confidence in us.

Another critical aspect requiring reform is the ability of a Member to travel on a corporate jet and only pay the rate of a first class plane ticket. This bill requires Senators and their employees who use corporate or charter aircraft to pay the fair market value for that travel. While I appreciate that such a change is not popular with some of my colleagues, the time has come to fundamentally change the way we do things in this town. Much of the public views our ability to travel on corporate jets, often accompanied by lobbyists, while only reimbursing the first-class rate, as a huge loophole in the current gift rules. And they are right--it is. I have no doubt that the average American would love to fly around the country on very comfortable corporate-owned aircraft and only be charged the cost of a first-class ticket. It is a pretty good deal we have got going here. We need to face the fact that the time has come to end this Congressional perk.

At a time when the public is questioning our integrity, the Senate needs to more aggressively enforce its own rules. We can do this not just by making more public the work that the Senate Ethics Committee currently undertakes, but by addressing the conflict that is inherent in any body that regulates itself. That is why I am again proposing the creation of a new Office of Public Integrity with the capacity to initiate and conduct investigations, uncolored by partisan concerns and unconstrained by collegial relationships.

Finally, Mr. President, if we are truly serious about reform, we need to address what some have coined the currency of corruption--earmarks. In 1994, there were 4,126 earmarks. In 2005, there were 15,877--an increase of nearly 400 percent! But there was a little good news for 2006 solely due to the good sense that occurred unexpectedly when the Labor HHS appropriations bill was approved with almost no earmarks, an amazing feat given that there were over 3,000 earmarks the prior year for just that bill. Yet despite this first reduction in 12 years, it does not change the fact that the largest number of earmarks have still occurred in the last three years--2004, 2005, and 2006.

Now, let us consider the level of funding associated with those earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion in 1994 to $64 billion in FY 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34 percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks decreased! Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more than tripled in the last 10 years. This explosion in earmarks led one lobbyist to deride the appropriations committees as favor factories. The time for us to fix this broken process is long overdue.

Mr. President, this past election, the American people sent a clear message: clean up the way business is done in our capitol. As faithful public servants, we are obligated to respond. Let us respond meaningfully, to assure the American people that we are here promoting the interests of main street over that of K Street, and that we are more interested in public service than the perks and privileges offered us. Let us also remind ourselves that we came here in the sincere belief that public service is a noble calling, a reward unto itself.

I therefore urge my colleagues in joining me on this bill. I think our Nation and this venerable institution will be all the better for it.