John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will respond.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If the minority leader will yield, I was told there is a whole stack of amendments going to be considered. I am sure some will require rollcall votes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe the hour now is 5 minutes to midnight as I note from the clock. We are now completing consideration of an appropriations bill that entails $31.2 billion of the taxpayers' money. We began consideration of this around 10:30, I think. So, between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and midnight we have now thoroughly scrutinized the expenditure of $31.2 billion of taxpayer money, which also happens to be $1.5 billion over the request. I am sure all of my colleagues feel we have thoroughly examined a $31.2 billion expenditure of their money. This system we are under now is broken. We shouldn't be, on a night before we are--we all know we are going into a recess--considering a bill of this magnitude in an hour and a half at a very late hour. I certainly do not quarrel with any of my colleagues who did not have an opportunity to examine the bill and the report language. It really rolls out the pork barrel. It has $1.5 billion for unrequested earmarks with more than $1.3 billion going to 618 Army Corps of Engineers projects, 618 projects that the Corps has not identified as priorities for fiscal year 2006. I don't know how we can justify providing more than $1 billion for low priority, nonessential water projects and, at the same time, pat ourselves on the back for a very stringent budget that we passed which caused many Americans to make sacrifices in very important programs because we could not afford them. So we are adding $1 billion for low priority, nonessential water projects. Certainly when it comes to funding the pet water projects, budget deficit and national priorities flow out of the minds of our appropriators. We just found out that we had about $1 billion or $1.5 billion or $2 billion shortfall in funding for our veterans and their health care, but we can afford more than $1 billion for nonessential projects. One of them, $145 million for additional Army Corps projects in Mississippi. The banks of the Yazoo River Basin overflow with $113.3 million and the Yazoo pumps are humming right along with $25 million. The Yazoo pumps is the controversial project that I spoke about in the Senate more than 2 years ago. The bill brings the total appropriated to the pumps since fiscal year 2003 to $59 million. The project was opposed by the EPA. It was opposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service because it will drain and damage 200,000 acres of public and private wetlands in the heart of the Mississippi flyway for no important public purpose. Residential flooding problems were addressed decades ago by the Federal construction of the Yazoo backwater levy. We have $90 million for the central and south Florida and the Kissimmee River; $67 million for Alaska projects, including $15 million for the Nome and Unalaska Harbor improvements. With these improvements Alaska residents will continue to enjoy a great deal of the taxpayers' dollars; $30 million for the American River watershed in California, and the list goes on. I will turn, instead, to some of the authorizations in this appropriations bill. It is a violation of Senate rules to authorize on an appropriations bill. That rule continues to be violated in an egregious fashion. Directing or authorizing policy is a function reserved for the authorizing committee. With an appropriations bill full of authorizations that modify existing law and policy and significantly run up the tab for the taxpayers, these authorizing provisions belong in the water resources development legislation. And that is where some of them were taken from and placed into this bill. Others were newly created for the purpose of authorizing projects and appropriating funds for them. Some examples: An authorization to increase the funding of the Marmet Lock, Kanawha River, West Virginia, by more than $128 million--not authorized. An authorization for the construction of a project on the Lower Mud River, West Virginia, in accordance with a draft Corps report--a draft Corps report; not a final report, a draft Corps report--and a 75- percent Federal cost share of $34,125,000. If a 75/25 Federal cost share seems generous, well, my friends, there is a provision in this bill that goes even further, to strike the required cost-sharing provisions secured by President Reagan in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The Yazoo Basin Headwater Improvement, Mississippi, is authorized to include the design and construction at full Federal expense such measures as determined by the Corps to be ``advisable''--take note of the word ``advisable''--not technically feasible or economically beneficial--for the entire Yazoo River and more than 27 tributaries and watersheds. There is no way of telling how much advisable measures might end up costing the taxpayers. Authorization to increase the cost ceiling of the Central New Mexico Army Corps project by $25 million. Authorization for the Corps of Engineers to remove the sunken vessel State of Pennsylvania from the Christina River in Delaware with funding of $275,000. I guess when $175,000 was earmarked for this project in the Emergency Supplemental Act of 2005, no one appreciated that the Corps did not have the authority to address this ``emergency'' as well as not knowing the cost. Authorization for $10 million for the Army Corps projects in Alpine, CA. Language reauthorizing the Water 2025 grant program and making it permanent. Language deauthorizing a portion of an Army Corps project in Tacoma, WA. I have cosponsored the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005 with Senator Feingold for the purpose of making effective and responsible changes in the Army Corps water projects program through a deliberative process. I encourage my colleagues to look at page 123 of the committee report. Under the heading of Congressionally Directed Projects, as my colleague from Oklahoma has just pointed out, you will find a list of 47 projects totaling $60.75 million that the committee states are not essential. I quote: The Committee has provided sufficient funding to cover the cost of these additions so as not to impact essential research. So, therefore, it must be nonessential. And there is only one thing in common with all of these projects: They are earmarked for a specific location or institute of higher learning. There is not a one that is just for a general purpose. Well, we are spending $87 million--oh, additionally, beginning on page 126 of the report, there are eight more Congressionally Directed Projects totaling over $26 million that, again, the committee describes as nonessential. Why are we spending over $87 million on research that is not essential? We have a $365 billion deficit. We are in a war. I do not think it is in keeping with the priorities we need to establish if we are going to address the budget deficit nor our priorities of winning the war on terror and taking care of the men and women in the military. I hope that at some point in time we can restore the authorization process which then would precede the appropriations process. I would hope we would at some time consider enforcing the rule of the Senate against authorizing on an appropriations bill. I do not think there is any doubt that with us considering a bill at 10:30 p.m. until midnight, for $31.5 billion, it is not the way the American taxpayers want us to do business. Therefore, I will oppose passage of this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1085

Mr. McCAIN. What is the agreement?

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006. This bill provides approximately $26.2 billion in discretionary spending--approximately $542 million over the President's request--for the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service, most agencies of the Interior Department-- except the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. I commend the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and in particular, the efforts of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, for completing this appropriation bill in a timely manner. Unfortunately, as is the case with many of the appropriations bills that come to the floor, this bill and its accompanying report contains earmarks and pork projects which have not been authorized or requested. The bill provides funding for critical programs like forest health and restoration, superfund cleanup, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and PILT, but all too often, many of these accounts are eroded by unnecessary, unrequested earmarks. This is especially frustrating given the $600 million annual maintenance backlog that is crippling the National Park system. There is not a single member of this body who does not have a National Park or monument, or other Park Service unit in his or her State that is not in need of attention. And while curbing the use of earmarks might not solve our Nation's enormous deficit or save our National Parks from long-term dilapidation, doing so would be a good step in repairing our broken appropriations process. Let's take a look at some of the earmarks that are in this bill or its accompanying report: $875,000 for a new water storage tank in the Town of Westerly, RI; $1,000,000 for water treatment projects in the Town of Waitsfield, VT; $2,465,000 for sudden oak death research; $200,000 for a poultry science project at Stephen F. Austin State University, Texas; $1,000,000 for statewide cesspool replacement in the County of Maui, HI; $1,800,000 for eider and sea otter recovery work at the Alaska SeaLife Center; $1,114,000 for a research laboratory in Sitka, AK; $500,000 for the University of Northern Iowa to develop new environmental technologies for small business outreach; $250,000 for paper industry byproduct waste reduction research in Wisconsin; $500,000 to continue research on pallid sturgeon spawning in the Missouri River; $400,000 to complete a bear DNA sampling study in Montana--the fourth consecutive year this earmark has been added to an appropriations vehicle; $450,000 for a well monitoring project in Hawaii; $5,100,000 to complete the visitor center at the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site, Arkansas; $6,059,000 to rehab bathhouses at Hot Springs National Park, AR; $160,000 for soil survey mapping in Wyoming; $400,000 for studies on the impact of lead mining in the Mark Twain National Forest; $500,000 for restoration at the Mark Twain Boyhood Home National Historic Landmark in Missouri. In what has become perhaps one of the greatest examples of pork barrel politics, the Forest Service has lost more than $850 million since 1982 on timber sales and the construction of access roads for commercial logging in Alaska's Tongass National Forest. More than 4,000 miles of these roads criss-cross the Tongass and have accrued at least $100 million in deferred maintenance while serving little public purpose. And every year, Congress continues to appropriate funds to build new roads without accounting for the encumbrance imposed by existing roads. I support commercial logging, but not when it requires Federal subsidies that offer no return to the taxpayer. These federally funded roads are meant to stabilize the price of timber logged from the Tongass, but the program actually costs the Federal treasury tens of millions of dollars each year--nearly $48 million in fiscal year 2004 alone--because the value of Tongass lumber is not competitive and so the Forest Service takes a loss on almost every timber contract it manages. To clarify, Mr. President, that is hundreds of millions in Federal subsidies just to lose hundreds of millions in unprofitable logging. Mark Twain, a cynic of politicians and government, once wrote: ``One of the first achievements of the legislature was to institute a ten- thousand-dollar agricultural fair to show off forty dollars worth of pumpkins.'' I can only speculate what Mark Twain would say about the egregious waste of taxpayer money allocated to continue the timber subsidy program in the Tongass National Forest. I am pleased to have joined with Senator Sununu and others in offering an amendment which would prohibit funding for road building in the Tongas National Forest. I hope my colleagues' will support this amendment. Many of my colleagues may have forgotten, but it is a violation of Senate rules to legislate on an appropriation bill. Directing or authorizing policy is a function reserved for the authorizing committees, not the appropriations committee. As is done far to frequently, this appropriations bill includes a variety of policy changes. Examples include: Language that authorizes the construction of a replacement IHS facility in Nome, AK, on land owned by the Sound Health Corporation; Language that allows the Secretary of the Interior to collect parking fees at the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial; Language that restricts the use of Forest Service answering machines during business hours unless the answering machine includes an option that enables callers to reach an individual. Why is this appearing in an appropriation bill? Perhaps the appropriators could exert jurisdiction over the waiting lines at the DMV? Also, language that requires National Recreation Reservation Service call centers to be located within the United States and language that extends Abandoned Mine Land program until June 30, 2006. This is the third time the AML program has been extended via the appropriations process. I may not have qualms with many of these particular expenditures and policy items. Some of them may be truly needed and deserving of swift passage. However, it is the casual disregard for Senate procedure that concerns me deeply. We need to be protecting the American taxpayer, not waving rules and passing appropriation bills with wasteful spending. We need to be thinking about the future generations who are going to be paying the tab for our continued spending, not delivering pork projects to special interests and their lobbyists. Surely, my colleagues are aware of the fiscal challenges facing this Nation. The national debate is consumed by questions like: How will we pay for rising Medicare and Medicaid costs? Will we be protected from rising energy costs? Will Social Security be there for our children? The answers to those questions fall to the Congress my friends.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be necessarily absent for the later part of the day as I will be attending the Oath of Office Ceremony at the United States Naval Academy where my son is being sworn in as a midshipman. I want to express my strong support for the two amendments that will be voted on today to address the unexpected and unacceptable funding shortfall for Veterans Administration medical services. I strongly endorse the two amendments that I am confident will be adopted overwhelmingly. It is incumbent on the Congress and the administration to continue to monitor the VA's funding situation closely and ensure proper medical assistance is readily available to our deserving veterans.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I applaud the Senator for his courage in taking on this issue. I have watched the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, speak in a passionate and advocating fashion, and I admire her knowledge of the facts and her advocacy. Unfortunately, I am supporting the amendment. It offers Members an opportunity to vote for the taxpayers' interests and put a halt to wasting their hard-earned dollars for the construction of new roads in the Tongass National Forest. The word ``new'' is key here because, according to the U.S. Forest Service, the existing road system already allows loggers access to more timber than the average annual cut in the Tongass for the past 3 years. Not only do the existing roads--5,000 miles already bought and paid for by taxpayers--offer access to more timber than the timber companies can harvest, the Forest Service can't even sell the harvested timber at rates to recoup the costs of road construction and timber sale preparation. So this program is a double insult to American taxpayers. Federal funds are first used to construct Tongass roads and prepare the timber sale and then the Forest Service sells that timber for a fraction of the federal investment. My colleagues from Alaska have argued that this amendment singles out this national forest from all the rest and they are simply seeking equal treatment for Alaska. The reason that this amendment recognizes the Tongass is because it is the most consistently wasteful timber sales program in the entire National Forest System. While we can't fix the entire broken Forest Service timber sales program today, we can fix this most egregious example of waste and mismanagement of scarce Federal dollars and that is the Tongass. The Forest Service website indicates that road building in the Tongass is by far the most expensive in the National Forest System, with construction costs of $150,000 per mile--remarkable. At the same time, the existing Tongass roads already face a $100 million maintenance backlog. My colleagues from Alaska have not denied the fact that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have subsidized the unprofitable Tongass timber program, but instead have made the extraordinary argument that ``the timber sales program on National Forests is not supposed to be profitable''. When Congress established the Forest Service as stewards of the National Forests one hundred years ago, it was charged with the management of these public lands for commercial, recreational, and other purposes for the benefit of the American public. I'm sure no one conceived of the situation in the Tongass which has been detrimental to public interests for decades. Since 1982, taxpayers have provided more than $850 million subsidizing the logging industry in the Tongass National Forest alone. Between 1982 and 2002, cumulative losses for Tongass timber sales reached $750 million, or an annual average loss of $37 million. In 2004, the Forest Service spent more than $48 million on the Tongass timber program, but took in less than $800,000 from timber companies. This amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of more than $160,000 per logging job in the Tongass. Nice industry profit, but it is long past time that we stop this. Ironically, this program isn't even good for the Alaska economy. While a few hundred loggers are benefiting at taxpayers expense, many more Alaskan jobs that depend on recreation, small-scale logging, and tourism-related industries are harmed by the extensive road building, clear-cutting, and resulting degradation of water and wildlife resources. Perhaps that is why more than 1000 sporting and gun clubs as well as local businesses have joined with taxpayer and conservation groups in opposition to the construction of new roads in the Tongass and in support of this amendment. Every once in a while, a State or community has to go through a wrenching change. It is time for a change in the Tongass National Forest. I hope my colleagues will approve this amendment. Over time, I hope it will prove beneficial to the State of Alaska.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if we are going to put any kind of brake on earmarking and some of the subterfuge that exists of putting earmarks into conference reports which are then interpreted by the agencies affected as mandatory, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma should be adopted.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that the Senate has once again produced an Energy bill that does not serve either the present or future energy needs of our Nation. The provisions in this bill will not make us less dependent on foreign oil, will not enhance the reliability of the Nation's electricity grid, will not effectively promote energy efficiency and technological innovation, will not reduce the price of energy to consumers over time, and will not address our significant contribution to the serious problem of global warming. While I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee for the bipartisan process they have led throughout the debate, I cannot support the resulting bill. But I do want to acknowledge that compared to the last conference report on this issue, the measure before us is somewhat better in some respects and certainly more so than the recently passed House bill. For example, the Senate measure does include more emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable technology, doesn't include an MTBE waiver or hand-outs to Hooters, and a few special interests were left behind, although not enough. However, when the price of gas reaches $3 a gallon, which some experts believe will occur within a year, and more manufacturing jobs are lost overseas due to soaring energy costs, and the next blackout occurs, and the wait lists for fuel-efficient cars grow even longer, and climatic changes increasingly affect American lives and livelihoods, the American public is surely going to judge that this Congress did not live up to the great challenge before it by passing a sound, far-reaching, national energy policy measure, despite the multiple years in the making. And, as we all know, Congress doesn't have any popularity points to squander at this time. But even more to the point is that we don't have the time to squander, now is the time we need to act to avoid disastrous economic and environmental consequences. I am not spinning a doomsday scenario here, most of my colleagues appreciate the uncomfortable fact that these are our present energy supply realities. That is why I believe a more appropriate title for this bill would be ``The Lost Energy and Economic Opportunity Act of 2005.'' Opportunity lost because as a body we should have the vision and the political courage to craft national energy policy that addresses the serious energy problems before us with effective, identified solutions that put us on a new course--a more secure, reliable, and smarter course. Not the same tired path this bill treads, and spending an estimated $16 billion from the Federal Treasury to provide taxpayers' subsidies largely for wealthy energy producers and corporations. With the passage of this bill, we will have lost the historic opportunity to craft a national energy policy that relies on the market realities of high priced oil and gas instead of taxpayer subsidies to drive our country in the direction of energy efficiency, security, and independence, as well as global environmental stewardship. It doesn't make fiscal or common sense to provide billions of taxpayer subsidies to encourage the production of energy by companies that are already gaining tremendous riches at today's sky high oil and gas prices. But this bill does just that--it gives tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to the oil, gas, and coal industries. And if this was not sufficient, the bill provides an unlimited number of loan guarantees for the construction and operation of fossil fuel and nuclear projects far into the future. As such, no one can accurately assess how much this bill will end up costing American taxpayers. We can say with certainty that it is many times more expensive than the $6.7 billion that the Administration wanted and even much more costly than the House bill at $8 billion. The tax incentives alone in the Senate bill are estimated to be more than $14 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Remarkable generosity with scarce taxpayer funds. My colleagues supporting this bill contend that these taxpayer subsidies are necessary to increase domestic energy supplies and provide incentives for technological innovation. I believe that these subsidies largely amount to a multi-billion-dollar maintenance of the status quo which will only perpetuate and exacerbate our current national energy and environmental problems for the foreseeable future. Let me be clear. I understand the need to encourage the development and deployment of zero and low emission technologies. That is why Senator Lieberman and I added a comprehensive technology title to the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act which we offered as an amendment last week. But the incentives provided in our legislation are different in many respects from those in the Energy bill. For example, we propose a cost-sharing program with industry for first-of-a-kind engineering designs of facilities using advanced coal gasification, nuclear, and solar technologies as well as large scale biofuel production. Subsequent users of the designs generated under the program would pay a ``royalty fee'' on a per facility basis which would be used to reimburse the overall costs of the program. Following the design phase, loans or loan guarantees would be allowed for the construction phase of the first facility utilizing advanced coal gasification, nuclear, solar, and large scale biofuel production technologies. These loans would be repaid at the end of the construction phase, and in the case of loan guarantees, the guarantees would terminate at the end of the construction phase. This is very different from the programs authorized under the base Energy bill which provides loan guarantees over the operational life of the facilities. The approach in the underlying bill leaves the taxpayers liable for a very long time, 30 years in some cases, as opposed to a construction period of maybe 5 years in our legislation. And in our bill, we envision all assistance would be funded through the revenues from the early auction of carbon allowances to industry rather than entirely from the taxpayers pockets as would be the case in the underlying bill. Instead of our approach, the American public is going to be saddled entirely with the expense of this bill, which is running on empty-- empty of new ideas--and further running up our deficit. The fuel we should be relying on to drive our national energy policy is American consumer demand. If we allowed consumer demand to drive our legislative actions, this bill would emphasize energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy and include a reasonable and progressive CAFE standard for SUVs and all other passenger vehicles. If it were up to American consumers, we wouldn't be imposing a meaningless 8 billion gallon ethanol mandate, but instead would be making it possible for people to obtain and operate their automobiles using clean and abundant biofuels that actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil and not just provide subsidies to the ethanol producers. If it were to the American public, we would not be repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, without replacing it with alternative protections for utility ratepayers, investors, and pension plans. Finally, if it were up to the American public, we would pass a bill that addresses global climate change: more than 75 percent of Americans believe that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and participate with our allies and other countries in a united effort. And in the process of reducing emissions, we would also improve the health of millions of Americans who suffer from asthma and other air quality-related conditions. If these kind of policies were to be found in this bill not only would it satisfy the majority of the American public but it would significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil while providing new jobs and financial benefits to the agricultural sector and a host of energy, technology, and service providers economy-wide. So why aren't we doing that in this bill? Why aren't we seizing the economic and environmental opportunities that are within our grasp, the available solutions to our current and future energy woes? There must be some good reason that we aren't giving the public what it wants but are giving special interests and rich corporations exactly what they want. I will leave that for the supporters of this bill to explain to the American public as we continue on our well-worn and convoluted energy path leading us no further than where we are right now. Only in the future, fuel prices will be higher, greenhouse gas emissions will be greater, and our economy, international relations, and environment will be in greater peril.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts involving former Federal officers and employees who represent Indian tribes. The legislation amends the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA), 25 US.C. 450i(j), by limiting the exemption from Federal conflicts of interest laws. Current law exempts from the conflicts laws former Federal officers and employees who ``are employed by Indian tribes'', thus permitting these former Federal employees immediately to lobby the departments they just left and act as agents and attorneys for the tribes. The legislation limits this exemption only to those former Federal employees who are employees of Indian tribes pursuant to self-determination contracts or self-governance compacts. The bill clarifies what I believe was the intent of the Congress, as evidenced by House Report No. 93-4600 that accompanies the ISDEA, that Federal employees who work in an area that is contracted or compacted to a tribe be able to continue performing their jobs if they become employees of the Indian tribe for purposes of working in the contracted or compacted area. The exception that was made to the conflict laws appeared to have been made in response to the recognition that when Indian tribes took on the responsibility of operating programs traditionally fulfilled by the Federal Government, they would need experienced individuals to fulfill contracted or compacted functions. Former Federal employees who leave the Federal Government and go to work as outside lawyers or lobbyists for Indian tribes, however, would, under the legislation I am introducing today, be subject to the same conflicts of interest restraints that apply to other former Federal employees who work for other entities. The bill takes effect one year after enactment to allow time for people to familiarize themselves with the new law and for tribes to seek alternative representation if necessary. Limiting the waiver of conflicts laws in this manner proposed in this bill will address a problem identified by the Inspector General of the Department of Interior. In a report dated February 2002, entitled ``Allegations Involving Irregularities in the Tribal Recognition Process and Concerns Relating to Indian Gaming, the IG laid out a number of contacts by former BIA and DOI officials, who left Federal employment to represent tribes at law firms, to the BIA regarding recognition matters that, but for the exemption from the conflicts rules, they would be barred from making. The IG suggested that these contacts were improper, but not illegal. These contacts were all made by former Federal employees who worked as outside lawyers and lobbyists for tribes. In his testimony before the Senator Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year, the Inspector General again raised the issue of conflicts of interest and referred to a problem of a ``revolving door'' involving former Department of Interior officials. This legislation seeks to address that problem. I urge my colleagues to support it. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts involving former Federal officers and employees who represent Indian tribes. The legislation amends the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA), 25 US.C. 450i(j), by limiting the exemption from Federal conflicts of interest laws. Current law exempts from the conflicts laws former Federal officers and employees who ``are employed by Indian tribes'', thus permitting these former Federal employees immediately to lobby the departments they just left and act as agents and attorneys for the tribes. The legislation limits this exemption only to those former Federal employees who are employees of Indian tribes pursuant to self-determination contracts or self-governance compacts. The bill clarifies what I believe was the intent of the Congress, as evidenced by House Report No. 93-4600 that accompanies the ISDEA, that Federal employees who work in an area that is contracted or compacted to a tribe be able to continue performing their jobs if they become employees of the Indian tribe for purposes of working in the contracted or compacted area. The exception that was made to the conflict laws appeared to have been made in response to the recognition that when Indian tribes took on the responsibility of operating programs traditionally fulfilled by the Federal Government, they would need experienced individuals to fulfill contracted or compacted functions. Former Federal employees who leave the Federal Government and go to work as outside lawyers or lobbyists for Indian tribes, however, would, under the legislation I am introducing today, be subject to the same conflicts of interest restraints that apply to other former Federal employees who work for other entities. The bill takes effect one year after enactment to allow time for people to familiarize themselves with the new law and for tribes to seek alternative representation if necessary. Limiting the waiver of conflicts laws in this manner proposed in this bill will address a problem identified by the Inspector General of the Department of Interior. In a report dated February 2002, entitled ``Allegations Involving Irregularities in the Tribal Recognition Process and Concerns Relating to Indian Gaming, the IG laid out a number of contacts by former BIA and DOI officials, who left Federal employment to represent tribes at law firms, to the BIA regarding recognition matters that, but for the exemption from the conflicts rules, they would be barred from making. The IG suggested that these contacts were improper, but not illegal. These contacts were all made by former Federal employees who worked as outside lawyers and lobbyists for tribes. In his testimony before the Senator Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year, the Inspector General again raised the issue of conflicts of interest and referred to a problem of a ``revolving door'' involving former Department of Interior officials. This legislation seeks to address that problem. I urge my colleagues to support it. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. PRESIDENT, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on the following: (1) S.J. Res. 15, A bill to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States. (2) S. 374, A bill to provide compensation to the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes of South Dakota for damage to tribal land caused by Pick-Sloan projects along the Missouri River. (3) S. 113, A bill to modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria is deemed to be held in trust. (4) S. 881, A bill to compensate the Spokane Tribe of Indians for the use of tribal land for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes. (5) S. 449, A bill to facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals to make Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act available to missed enrollees, eligible elders, and persons born after Dec. 18, 1971, and for other purposes. (6) H.R. 797/S. 475, A bill to amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 and other acts to improve housing programs for Indians. (7) S. 623, A bill to direct the Secretary of Interior to convey certain land held in trust for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to the City of Richfield, UT, and for other purposes. (8) S. 598, A bill to reauthorize provisions in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating to Native Hawaiian low-income housing and Federal loan guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing. (9) S. , A bill to condemn certain subsurface rights to land held trust by the State of Arizona, and convey subsurface rights held by BLM, for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. (10) S. , A bill to authorize funding for the National Indian Gaming Commission. (11) S. 1239, A bill to authorize the use of Indian Health Service funds to pay Medicare Part D premiums on behalf of Indians. (12) S. 1231, A bill to provide initial funding for the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education previously established by Congress. (13) S. , A bill to require former Federal employees who are employed by tribes to adhere to conflict of interest rules. (14) S. , A bill to amend the Tribally Controlled Community College and Universities Assistance Act. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 10 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Regulation of Indian Gaming. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee. committee on indian affairs

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support increasing corporate average fuel economy standards. In fact, I have supported strengthening CAFE standards for several years, and in 2002 I introduced legislation that would have significantly improved such standards. My strong support for raising CAFE standards makes it all the more difficult for me to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Durbin this evening. When this body considers legislation, we must always be mindful of distinguishing between the advisability and the feasibility of the proposal before us. I strongly support the Durbin amendment's goals of lowering our reliance on foreign oil and of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. I strongly support those goals. But this amendment, sadly, does not appear to be achievable without significantly and detrimentally affecting our economy. Mr. President, there are realistic options available to us. For example, I support legislation that would require passenger cars and light trucks to meet the same average fuel economy standard of 27.5 miles within a reasonable amount of time. I will continue to work towards such achievable and beneficial improvements to our Nation's average fuel economy.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the National Indian Gaming Commission Accountability Act of 2005 to amend provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act regarding NIGC funding and accountability. The Indian gaming industry has undergone tremendous growth since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. The regulatory responsibilities of the NIGC, the Federal agency responsible for oversight of the industry, has likewise grown. In recent years the NIGC's budgeting needs have consistently exceeded the $8 million statutory cap, necessitating short-term authorizations to exceed the cap to enable it to adequately enforce the Act. Rather than merely raising the cap on funding, this legislation amends IGRA's equation for funding the NIGC by allowing the funding to adjust in direct proportion to the revenues of the Indian gaming industry, with funding expanding or contracting as the Indian gaming industry grows or recedes. Under that equation--which provides that fees cannot exceed .08 percent of gross gaming revenues--the NIGC's budget for fiscal 2007 would be capped at approximately $14.5 million. As the agency's needs have grown, so has the scrutiny of the regulated community and affected parties. It is therefore appropriate that the agency's budgetary choices and program plans be subject to transparency. Therefore, this legislation increases not only the agency's funding, but also its accountability by directing that the NIGC be subject to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). As a result, the agency would be required to develop a Strategic Plan, and annual performance plans and performance reports, all of which will provide critical information to the regulated stakeholders. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this timely and balanced legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in sponsoring the Community Broadband Act of 2005. In the simplest of terms, this bill would ensure that any town, city, or county that wishes to offer high- speed Internet services to its citizens can do so. The bill also would ensure fairness by requiring municipalities that offer high-speed Internet services do so in compliance with all Federal and State telecommunications laws and in a nondiscriminatory manner. This bill is needed if we are to meet President Bush's call for ``universal, affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007.'' When President Bush announced this nationwide goal in 2004, the country was ranked 10th in the world for high-speed Internet penetration. Today, the country is ranked 16th. This is unacceptable for a country that should lead the world in technical innovation, economic development, and international competitiveness. Many of the countries outpacing the United States in the deployment of high-speed Internet services, including Canada, Japan, and South Korea, have successfully combined municipal systems with privately deployed networks to wire their countries. As a country, we cannot afford to cut off any successful strategy if we want to remain internationally competitive. I recognize that our Nation has a long and successful history of private investment in critical communications infrastructure. That history must be respected, protected, and continued. However, when private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or other obstacles, it is appropriate and even commendable, for the people acting through their local governments to improve their lives by investing in their own future. In many rural towns, the local government's high-speed Internet offering may be its citizens only option to access the World Wide Web. Despite this situation, a few incumbent providers of traditional telecommunications services have attempted to stop local government deployment of community high speed Internet services. The bill would do nothing to limit their ability to compete. In fact, the bill would provide them an incentive to enter more rural areas and deploy services in partnership with local governments. This partnership will not only reduce the costs to private firms, but also ensure wider deployment of rural services. Additionally, the bill would aid private providers by prohibiting a municipality when acting as both ``regulator'' and ``competitor'' from discriminating against competitors in favor of itself. Several newspapers have endorsed the concept of allowing municipalities to choose whether to offer high speed Internet services. USA Today rightfully questioned in an editorial, ``Why shouldn't citizens be able to use their own resources to help themselves?'' The Washington Post editorialized that the offering of high speed Internet services by localities is, ``. . . the sort of municipal experiment we hope will spread.'' The San Jose Mercury News stated that a ban on localities ability to offer such services is ``bad for consumers, bad for technology and bad for America's hopes of catching up to other countries in broadband deployment.'' Finally, the Tampa Tribune lectured Federal and State legislators, ``don't prohibit local elected officials from providing a service their communities need.'' My home State of Arizona boasts the largest approved municipal broadband system in the United States, for example. The city of Tempe's wireless system will serve all of the city's 40 square miles and a population of 159,000, including the campus of Arizona State University. Citizens will have Internet access from anywhere at any time, and police, fire, water and traffic services personnel will use the system to enhance their efficiency. In addition to Tempe, several Native American tribal governments offer high-speed Internet access services to their citizens. This bill would ensure that such offerings could continue to assist Indian country and their ability to connect to the Internet. Our country faces some real challenges. We need to find ways to use technology to help our citizens better compete. We need to help our businesses capitalize on their ingenuity so that they can become more internationally competitive. That is why we need to do all we can to eliminate barriers to competition and create incentives for the delivery of high-speed Internet services for public suppliers of broadband services, private suppliers of broadband services, and public-private partnerships as well. I hope my colleagues will join us in sponsoring the Community Broadband Act of 2005.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pascua Yaqui Mineral Rights Act of 2005 to provide for acquisition of subsurface mineral interests in land owned by the Pascua Yaqui tribe and land held in trust for the Tribe. The Pascua Yaqui tribe has purchased in fee four parcels of land, totaling approximately 436 acres, from the State of Arizona. These parcels are adjacent to the Tribe's reservation near Tucson, AZ. The Tribe subsequently applied to have these lands taken into trust pursuant to the 25 CFR Part 151 process. The Bureau of Indian Affairs approved the trust application. However, the State of Arizona objected because it still owns the subsurface mineral rights when it conveys its Trust lands. Based on the State of Arizona's objection, the Tribe's trust application was stayed pending resolution of the mineral rights title issue. Arizona law prevents the State from selling these mineral interests and I understand that the only way they can be acquired is through an act of condemnation brought by the United States pursuant to 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3113. The State of Arizona has conditionally consented to a condemnation action. It has since been discovered that an additional 140 acres of the reservation was also former State of Arizona trust land that was purchased in fee by the Tribe and taken into trust without obtaining the mineral estate. The State of Arizona has also conditionally consented to a condemnation action with regard to these additional 140 acres. In additional to the mineral interests condemnation, this legislation covers another subject. Under 360 acres of the reservation, the United States owns the mineral interests for itself, rather than in trust for the tribe. Although that acreage was originally purchased in fee, it was previously patented by the U.S. and the U.S. retained the mineral interests to that property for its own benefit, currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This legislation would authorize the Bureau of Land Management to transfer those mineral interests to the U.S., to be held in trust for the Pascua Yaqui tribe. The result of the legislation I introduce today would be to allow the United States to obtain and/or consolidate ownership of the mineral interest only, in its name, in trust for the Pascua Yaqui tribe. These mineral interests are under the surface of land already either owned by the Pascua Yaqui tribe, or held in trust for the Tribe by the United States. Finally, under the terms of its current gaming compact with the State of Arizona, the Tribe has already constructed the maximum number of casinos it can operate on its reservation at this time. This bill will not authorize additional reservation casinos. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in sponsoring the Community Broadband Act of 2005. In the simplest of terms, this bill would ensure that any town, city, or county that wishes to offer high- speed Internet services to its citizens can do so. The bill also would ensure fairness by requiring municipalities that offer high-speed Internet services do so in compliance with all Federal and State telecommunications laws and in a nondiscriminatory manner. This bill is needed if we are to meet President Bush's call for ``universal, affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007.'' When President Bush announced this nationwide goal in 2004, the country was ranked 10th in the world for high-speed Internet penetration. Today, the country is ranked 16th. This is unacceptable for a country that should lead the world in technical innovation, economic development, and international competitiveness. Many of the countries outpacing the United States in the deployment of high-speed Internet services, including Canada, Japan, and South Korea, have successfully combined municipal systems with privately deployed networks to wire their countries. As a country, we cannot afford to cut off any successful strategy if we want to remain internationally competitive. I recognize that our Nation has a long and successful history of private investment in critical communications infrastructure. That history must be respected, protected, and continued. However, when private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or other obstacles, it is appropriate and even commendable, for the people acting through their local governments to improve their lives by investing in their own future. In many rural towns, the local government's high-speed Internet offering may be its citizens only option to access the World Wide Web. Despite this situation, a few incumbent providers of traditional telecommunications services have attempted to stop local government deployment of community high speed Internet services. The bill would do nothing to limit their ability to compete. In fact, the bill would provide them an incentive to enter more rural areas and deploy services in partnership with local governments. This partnership will not only reduce the costs to private firms, but also ensure wider deployment of rural services. Additionally, the bill would aid private providers by prohibiting a municipality when acting as both ``regulator'' and ``competitor'' from discriminating against competitors in favor of itself. Several newspapers have endorsed the concept of allowing municipalities to choose whether to offer high speed Internet services. USA Today rightfully questioned in an editorial, ``Why shouldn't citizens be able to use their own resources to help themselves?'' The Washington Post editorialized that the offering of high speed Internet services by localities is, ``. . . the sort of municipal experiment we hope will spread.'' The San Jose Mercury News stated that a ban on localities ability to offer such services is ``bad for consumers, bad for technology and bad for America's hopes of catching up to other countries in broadband deployment.'' Finally, the Tampa Tribune lectured Federal and State legislators, ``don't prohibit local elected officials from providing a service their communities need.'' My home State of Arizona boasts the largest approved municipal broadband system in the United States, for example. The city of Tempe's wireless system will serve all of the city's 40 square miles and a population of 159,000, including the campus of Arizona State University. Citizens will have Internet access from anywhere at any time, and police, fire, water and traffic services personnel will use the system to enhance their efficiency. In addition to Tempe, several Native American tribal governments offer high-speed Internet access services to their citizens. This bill would ensure that such offerings could continue to assist Indian country and their ability to connect to the Internet. Our country faces some real challenges. We need to find ways to use technology to help our citizens better compete. We need to help our businesses capitalize on their ingenuity so that they can become more internationally competitive. That is why we need to do all we can to eliminate barriers to competition and create incentives for the delivery of high-speed Internet services for public suppliers of broadband services, private suppliers of broadband services, and public-private partnerships as well. I hope my colleagues will join us in sponsoring the Community Broadband Act of 2005.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the National Indian Gaming Commission Accountability Act of 2005 to amend provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act regarding NIGC funding and accountability. The Indian gaming industry has undergone tremendous growth since the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. The regulatory responsibilities of the NIGC, the Federal agency responsible for oversight of the industry, has likewise grown. In recent years the NIGC's budgeting needs have consistently exceeded the $8 million statutory cap, necessitating short-term authorizations to exceed the cap to enable it to adequately enforce the Act. Rather than merely raising the cap on funding, this legislation amends IGRA's equation for funding the NIGC by allowing the funding to adjust in direct proportion to the revenues of the Indian gaming industry, with funding expanding or contracting as the Indian gaming industry grows or recedes. Under that equation--which provides that fees cannot exceed .08 percent of gross gaming revenues--the NIGC's budget for fiscal 2007 would be capped at approximately $14.5 million. As the agency's needs have grown, so has the scrutiny of the regulated community and affected parties. It is therefore appropriate that the agency's budgetary choices and program plans be subject to transparency. Therefore, this legislation increases not only the agency's funding, but also its accountability by directing that the NIGC be subject to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). As a result, the agency would be required to develop a Strategic Plan, and annual performance plans and performance reports, all of which will provide critical information to the regulated stakeholders. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact this timely and balanced legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be very brief because we worked it out that we would end up, which is appropriate because I am with the sponsor of the amendment. I say to the Senator from New Mexico, who has talked about winners and losers, I will tell you who will lose, and that is the next generation of Americans because every reliable scientific body in the world knows climate change is real. It is happening. And it may not bother the Senator from New Mexico and me at our age, but I will tell you, it bothers the heck out of young Americans, and it bothers the heck out of people who are experts on this issue. If the Senator from New Mexico is worried about winners and losers, and he and I are winners, the next generation of people all over the world are losers because the National Academy of Sciences' statement is very clear: There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate, however there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. I will tell you another loser, and that is the truth--that is the truth. The truth is, I say to the Senator from New Mexico, the European countries are meeting Kyoto emissions targets. They are meeting them. The truth is, Tony Blair has no political agenda. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, recognizes that global climate change is real. It is taking place, and we have to do something about it. To say that by us not allocating winners and losers is a reason not to act on this compelling issue of the future of our globe, when the evidence is now compelling and overwhelming, with the exception of a group I will cite before I finish who are now funded by industry, then the Senator and those who have debunked this and continue to debunk it are going to have somebody to answer to in not too many years from now. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.