John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the objective of Senator Cantwell's amendment. It is difficult to disagree with legislation that proposes to achieve the important goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, the amendment is an exercise in setting expectations without establishing how they will be met. As such, I cannot support it. The job of Congress is not only to determine policy objectives, but also to establish the means to achieving such goals in a manner that best services the public interest. While this amendment sets aggressive goals for cutting America's dependence on foreign oil, it places the total burden on the President and the administration to develop and implement the measures to reduce our dependence without one iota of guidance as to how this reduction should occur. Frankly, that is both a risky and an irresponsible proposition. What if this or any future President were to decide to meet this amendment's targets by drilling in ANWR, or by raising gasoline taxes? This amendment does not speak to those policy options, and--as shown by the examples I have set forth--the end of reducing our dependence on foreign oil does not necessarily justify the means. Instead of relying on wishful thinking and trust that the executive branch will do the right thing, we should consider and approve commonsense policies that will make our Nation more energy efficient, less dependent on foreign oil, and more competitive in the global energy market, and that will effectively address global warming. The national energy policy that we establish in this Congress will deeply impact our security, economy, and our environment. Even though we agree on goals, we cannot in good faith transfer all responsibility for determining how to achieve them to the executive branch. That is a dereliction of our duty as Senators--a duty that I take seriously and will not relinquish merely to show that I support the laudable goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I agree that clean, renewable energy technologies are an important part of a program to achieve our national energy and environmental goals. However, I do not believe that a Federal renewable portfolio standard achieves this objective. Twenty-three States have already adopted renewable technology standards and have committed resources to find cleaner and more efficient technologies to meet their energy needs. For example, Arizona is in the process of increasing its renewable target to 15 percent by 2020, exceeding the proposed Federal standard in the amendment. I expect that Arizona will implement its program in a manner that makes the most of the State's solar potential in the long-term. I do not believe that the proposed Federal standard would help Arizona or any other State fully achieve their clean energy and efficiency goals. I also understand that the penalty for noncompliance with the proposed Federal standard is significantly lower than the incremental cost of bringing renewables on line. While I do not believe the intent of this amendment is to impose an energy tax on consumers, I think that could be the economic reality in many circumstances. My colleague from Tennessee has argued persuasively that this Federal RPS is primarily a wind-power bill. I was interested to read in a fact sheet from the Union of Concerned Scientists that, to achieve this 10- percent Federal RPS, we would need to build almost 55,000 new wind turbines. That is an enormous number. I suspect that the potential adverse environmental effect such a massive construction project have not been studied. In fact, it has already been suggested that in the rush to take advantage of the current tax credit for wind generation analyses of potential long-term consequences have been neglected. I am not opposed to wind-power, but I have heard from utilities in my own State that a Federal mandate of this sort is largely a requirement to import wind, since Arizona has very limited wind resources. We are already providing substantial subsidies for wind-power and the energy tax title will provide more. I question why we need to subsidize wind to the practical exclusion of other renewables. The need for energy sustainability and cost-effectiveness does influence my opposition to this amendment. What we need to do, what we must do, is enact a mandatory cap and trade program for greenhouse gas reduction and let the market drive the technology. A Federal RPS would stand in sharp contrast to the market-based solutions in the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which Senator Lieberman and I introduced last month. That legislation would promote clean and efficient energy technologies without relying solely on taxpayer subsidies or choosing particular technologies over others. That is the vision I have for our energy future--a clean, efficient and innovative mix of technologies that benefit all Americans.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to support the Nation's finest: our police, fire fighters and other emergency response personnel. The Spectrum Availability for Emergency- response and Law-enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency Services Act, otherwise known as The SAVE LIVES Act. This bill is drafted in response to the 9-11 Commission's final report, which recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.'' To meet this recommendation, the SAVE LIVES Act would set a date certain for the allocation of spectrum to public safety agencies, specifically the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that Congress promised public safety agencies in 1997. This is a promise Congress has yet to deliver to our Nation's first responders. Now is the time for congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place. Access to this specific spectrum is essential to our Nation's safety and welfare as emergency communications sent over these frequencies are able to penetrate walls and travel great distances, and can assist multiple jurisdictions in deploying interoperable communications systems. In addition to setting a date certain, this bill would authorize funds for public safety agencies to purchase emergency communications equipment and ensure that Congress has the ability to consider whether additional spectrum should be provided for public safety communications prior to the recovered spectrum being auctioned. The bill contains significant language concerning consumer education of the digital television transition. The bill would mandate that warning labels be displayed on analog television sets sold prior to the transition, require warning language to be displayed at television retailers, command the distribution at retailers of brochures describing the television set options available, and call on broadcasters to air informational programs to better prepare consumers for the digital transition. The bill would ensure that no television viewer's set would go ``dark'' by providing digital-to-analog converter boxes to over-the-air viewers that have a household income that does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line and by allowing cable companies to down convert digital signal signals if necessary. I continue to believe that broadcast television is a powerful communications tool and important information source for citizens. I know that on 9/11, I learned about the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon like most Americans--by watching television. Therefore, this bill seeks to not only protect citizens' safety but also the distribution of broadcast television. Lastly, the bill would establish a tax credit for the recycling of television sets and require the Environmental Protection Agency to report to Congress on the need for a national electronic waste recycling program. The 9-11 Commission's final report contained harrowing tales about police officers and fire fighters who were inside the Twin Towers and unable to receive evacuation orders over their radios from commanders. In fact, the report found that this inability to communicate was not only a problem for public safety organizations responding at the World Trade Center, but also for those responding at the Pentagon and Somerset County, PA, crash sites where multiple organizations and multiple jurisdictions responded. Therefore, the Commission recommended that Congress accelerate the availability of more spectrum for public safety. The SAVE LIVES Act would implement the important recommendation and ensure that when our Nation experiences another attack, or other critical emergencies occur, our police, fire fighters, and other emergency response personnel will have the ability to communicate with each other and their commanders to prevent another catastrophic loss of life. Now is the time for congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place. Several lawmakers attempted to act last year during the debate on the intelligence reform bill, but our efforts were thwarted by the powerful National Association of Broadcasters. This year, I hope we can all work together and to pass a bill that ensures the country is not only better prepared in case of another attack but also protects the vital communications outlet of broadcast television. I believe the SAVE LIVES Act does just that. Mr. President, in an effort to expeditiously retrieve the spectrum for the Nation's first responders, to preserve over-the-air television accessibility to consumers and to ensure the adequate funding of both, I urge the enactment of the SAVE LIVES Act.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the American Indian Elderly and Disabled Access to Health Care Act of 2005 to revise the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. The legislation I introduce today will amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to permit the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, tribal or Urban Indian organization to use their funding to pay the Medicare Part D premiums of eligible Indian beneficiaries. These premium payments are for the American Indians and Alaska Natives enrolled in the prescription drug plans under part D of title XVIll of the Social Security Act. Currently, these funds can be used for paying Medicare Parts A and B premiums but not Part D, and this legislation will enable eligible Indian beneficiaries to enroll and participate in the Part D program when it begins in January, 2006. Mr. President, this legislation will increase the ability of the elderly and disabled American Indians and Alaska Natives to access the prescription drug benefits available under Medicare Part D and assist the Indian Health Service in achieving potentially significant cost savings. I urge my colleagues to join me in improving access to health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the American Indian Elderly and Disabled Access to Health Care Act of 2005 to revise the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. The legislation I introduce today will amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to permit the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, tribal or Urban Indian organization to use their funding to pay the Medicare Part D premiums of eligible Indian beneficiaries. These premium payments are for the American Indians and Alaska Natives enrolled in the prescription drug plans under part D of title XVIll of the Social Security Act. Currently, these funds can be used for paying Medicare Parts A and B premiums but not Part D, and this legislation will enable eligible Indian beneficiaries to enroll and participate in the Part D program when it begins in January, 2006. Mr. President, this legislation will increase the ability of the elderly and disabled American Indians and Alaska Natives to access the prescription drug benefits available under Medicare Part D and assist the Indian Health Service in achieving potentially significant cost savings. I urge my colleagues to join me in improving access to health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to support the Nation's finest: our police, fire fighters and other emergency response personnel. The Spectrum Availability for Emergency- response and Law-enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency Services Act, otherwise known as The SAVE LIVES Act. This bill is drafted in response to the 9-11 Commission's final report, which recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.'' To meet this recommendation, the SAVE LIVES Act would set a date certain for the allocation of spectrum to public safety agencies, specifically the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that Congress promised public safety agencies in 1997. This is a promise Congress has yet to deliver to our Nation's first responders. Now is the time for congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place. Access to this specific spectrum is essential to our Nation's safety and welfare as emergency communications sent over these frequencies are able to penetrate walls and travel great distances, and can assist multiple jurisdictions in deploying interoperable communications systems. In addition to setting a date certain, this bill would authorize funds for public safety agencies to purchase emergency communications equipment and ensure that Congress has the ability to consider whether additional spectrum should be provided for public safety communications prior to the recovered spectrum being auctioned. The bill contains significant language concerning consumer education of the digital television transition. The bill would mandate that warning labels be displayed on analog television sets sold prior to the transition, require warning language to be displayed at television retailers, command the distribution at retailers of brochures describing the television set options available, and call on broadcasters to air informational programs to better prepare consumers for the digital transition. The bill would ensure that no television viewer's set would go ``dark'' by providing digital-to-analog converter boxes to over-the-air viewers that have a household income that does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line and by allowing cable companies to down convert digital signal signals if necessary. I continue to believe that broadcast television is a powerful communications tool and important information source for citizens. I know that on 9/11, I learned about the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon like most Americans--by watching television. Therefore, this bill seeks to not only protect citizens' safety but also the distribution of broadcast television. Lastly, the bill would establish a tax credit for the recycling of television sets and require the Environmental Protection Agency to report to Congress on the need for a national electronic waste recycling program. The 9-11 Commission's final report contained harrowing tales about police officers and fire fighters who were inside the Twin Towers and unable to receive evacuation orders over their radios from commanders. In fact, the report found that this inability to communicate was not only a problem for public safety organizations responding at the World Trade Center, but also for those responding at the Pentagon and Somerset County, PA, crash sites where multiple organizations and multiple jurisdictions responded. Therefore, the Commission recommended that Congress accelerate the availability of more spectrum for public safety. The SAVE LIVES Act would implement the important recommendation and ensure that when our Nation experiences another attack, or other critical emergencies occur, our police, fire fighters, and other emergency response personnel will have the ability to communicate with each other and their commanders to prevent another catastrophic loss of life. Now is the time for congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place. Several lawmakers attempted to act last year during the debate on the intelligence reform bill, but our efforts were thwarted by the powerful National Association of Broadcasters. This year, I hope we can all work together and to pass a bill that ensures the country is not only better prepared in case of another attack but also protects the vital communications outlet of broadcast television. I believe the SAVE LIVES Act does just that. Mr. President, in an effort to expeditiously retrieve the spectrum for the Nation's first responders, to preserve over-the-air television accessibility to consumers and to ensure the adequate funding of both, I urge the enactment of the SAVE LIVES Act.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education Amendments Act of 2005 to revise the Act. In 2000, Congress authorized the establishment of a Federally- chartered non-profit foundation to further the educational opportunities for Native American students. This foundation, named the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education, was established in July, 2004 and has the potential for success in providing critical support to Native American students. The legislation I introduce today will enable the foundation to become self-sufficient by authorizing appropriations for endowment or seed money and authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding for the foundation's operating costs on a reimbursement basis. The legislation authorizes $5 million each fiscal year 2007 through 2009 and increases the administration cost limit from 10 percent to 15 percent of donations and transferred funds. This bill will also allow the Board to appoint the Chief Operating Officer who will be experienced in Indian education. Mr. President, this legislation will provide significant improvements for the foundation in its mission of advancing Indian education and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education Amendments Act of 2005 to revise the Act. In 2000, Congress authorized the establishment of a Federally- chartered non-profit foundation to further the educational opportunities for Native American students. This foundation, named the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education, was established in July, 2004 and has the potential for success in providing critical support to Native American students. The legislation I introduce today will enable the foundation to become self-sufficient by authorizing appropriations for endowment or seed money and authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding for the foundation's operating costs on a reimbursement basis. The legislation authorizes $5 million each fiscal year 2007 through 2009 and increases the administration cost limit from 10 percent to 15 percent of donations and transferred funds. This bill will also allow the Board to appoint the Chief Operating Officer who will be experienced in Indian education. Mr. President, this legislation will provide significant improvements for the foundation in its mission of advancing Indian education and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important resolution. I commend my friends and colleagues, Senator Landrieu and Senator Allen, for their leadership on this important issue. It is difficult to address this subject without noting the shameful record of Senate inaction on the issue of lynching. As noted in the text of the resolution, 4,742 people were lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968. During that time, 7 U.S. Presidents pushed for Congressional action on what had succeeded slavery as the ultimate expression of racism. Between 1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives passed strong antilynching measures on three different occasions. Sadly, the Senate failed to do its duty to enable antilynching legislation to be enacted, thus allowing this despicable, murderous practice to continue. This Senate Resolution is long, long overdue. As we all know, the Senate has a basic Federal responsibility to provide protection to those in need. While our predecessors failed in that regard, we have an opportunity today to begin healing the wounds that this body's failures have inflicted upon the African American community for so many years. The apology we issue today comes too late for the thousands of Americans brutally slain in this abhorrent manner. Hopefully, by our acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and our sincere apology, we can bring some solace to the family members who still recall--all too vividly-- the horror of having a loved one murdered by lynching. We must never forget the thousands of men, women and children who were deprived of life, human dignity, and the Constitutional protections that are to be accorded all U.S. citizens, We have a responsibility--to all Americans--to ensure that the tragedy of lynching, and this body's failure to address it, will neither be forgotten, nor repeated.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after over 7 years of service, Orson Swindle announced today his resignation as Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Swindle has been dedicated to protecting the interests of the American consumer by promoting competition and fairness in the marketplace. He will be sorely missed. Mr. Swindle's accomplishments at the FTC have been numerous, but his efforts to promote the vigorous development of the Internet and technology generally have been particularly important to our Nation's economy. His service with the Commission started shortly after the birth of electronic commerce, and it was thanks in part to Mr. Swindle's efforts to keep the Internet free of over-regulation that it is now such a robust and widely-used medium of communication, commerce, education, and political participation. All the while, Mr. Swindle has focused his efforts on educating consumers about the new online world in order to build their confidence in and knowledge of the Internet. He has also ensured that industry understands the need to self-regulate effectively or face the credible threat of Government interference and aggressive enforcement. I commend Mr. Swindle and thank him for his outstanding service to this country, and I deeply hope that he will continue to build on his long and distinguished career as a public servant. Our Nation benefits greatly from the work of individuals such as Orson Swindle, whom I am proud to call my friend. He stands as an example for us all of commitment, achievement, and sacrifice on behalf of our Nation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Massachusetts?

Mr. McCAIN. Fine.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona be recognized for 10 minutes, the Senator from Massachusetts for 10 minutes, and me for 10 minutes following that.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask if we could get a unanimous consent request here. The Senator from Arizona, my colleague from Arizona, I believe is next. How long does he wish?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask that the Senator from Florida be recognized following Senator Obama.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak again in support of John Bolton's confirmation as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. When I spoke in April in favor of Mr. Bolton, I highlighted a number of his qualities, including that he is smart, experienced, hard working, talented, and he knows the United Nations. In view of these and other impressive qualifications, the Senate has confirmed him four times in the past. It is worth repeating several times: The Senate has done its work and confirmed him four times in the past. In his current job as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, he has compiled a record of accomplishment. For example, next week marks the second anniversary of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a multilateral effort to stop trafficking of weapons of mass destruction and their components. John Bolton spearheaded this program since its inception, and today more than 60 countries support it. This success alone should disprove the argument that Mr. Bolton is somehow an arch unilateralist, bent on subverting collective international action. The PSI is not his only multilateral success. He has also helped to construct the G-8's global partnership to secure dangerous technologies and materials. He led the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Moscow which dramatically reduced the size of deployed nuclear arsenals in the United States and Russia, and in his previous post as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations he led the successful drive to repeal the U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism. A lot has been made in recent weeks about Mr. Bolton's personal disposition in dealing with colleagues. Let's be frank: He is not a career diplomat either by profession or temperament, but then, the role of ambassador to the U.N. has always required something special. A look back at some of the personalities who have held this job--from Adlai Stevenson to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, from Jeane Kirkpatrick to Richard Holbrooke--shows that directness and forcefulness are assets, not hindrances, to effectiveness at the U.N. We all know Mr. Bolton is perhaps not the world's most beloved manager nor one to keep his temper entirely under wraps. Perhaps I have a certain bias in that direction and an extra special sympathy because I am well known to my colleagues as always calm and never engaged in any controversial issues nor activities. But seriously, I ask my colleagues, I ask seriously, is this unique to Mr. Bolton? If a temper and an unorthodox management style were disqualifiers from Government service, would that disqualify a lot of people, including maybe one or two in this body? But the fact is, it is worth wondering not whether Mr. Bolton is a mild, gentle diplomat--we know he is not--but, rather, whether he is a representative we need at the United Nations. We need an ambassador who knows the U.N. We need an ambassador who is willing to shake up an organization that requires serious reform. Is there anyone in this Senate who does not believe the United Nations needs serious reform, an organization that has countries such as Sudan on its Human Rights Commission or whose General Assembly equates Zionism with racism? We all know about the oil-for-food scandal that is unfolding now. We know there have been several calls for reform. One of my friends, Brent Scowcroft, served on a panel that was named by the Secretary General. And Kofi Annan has presented his own serious plan to implement these recommendations because the United Nations needs reform. Why do I care so much? I care for a broad variety of reasons, including the fact that my taxpayer dollars support some 20 percent of the United Nations operations. The United Nations needs reform. The United Nations has failed in peacekeeping operations throughout the world. Some of the scandals concerning peacekeeping activities, of rape in the Congo, have got to be changed. The United Nations needs the presence of a tough, hard, dedicated individual who has been already confirmed in various posts four times by this Senate. Elections have consequences. One consequence of President Bush's reelection is he has a right to appoint officials of his choice. I stress this because the President nominates. It is not my choice, or any other Senator's, but the President's choice. When President Clinton was elected, I didn't share the policy views of some of the officials he nominated, but I voted to confirm them, thinking that the President has a right to put into place the team he believes will serve him best. The Foreign Relations Committee has spent weeks investigating Mr. Bolton's background. In his recent report on behalf of the committee majority, Senator Lugar, one of the most respected individuals in this Nation, determined ``the end result of all this is that Secretary Bolton emerged looking better than when it began.'' Chairman Lugar ultimately concluded that Mr. Bolton is a highly qualified nominee. I agree. In the last 48 hours or so I have noticed a change in the temperature around this body. I am very pleased about it. We realized it is time to move ahead with the people's business. It is time we started addressing seriously the energy crisis in this country. It is time we got together, along with the President, in coming together to save Social Security. It is time we move forward with the Defense authorization bill and help the men and women who are defending this Nation and sacrificing as we speak. I strongly urge my friends on the other side of the aisle, we are going to have a cloture vote this evening. After that, let's vote up or down. For my colleagues who disagree and do not want Mr. Bolton there, I respect their views. But let's go ahead and give him an up-or-down vote before we go into recess for a week. Let him go. If the Senate in its wisdom approves of his nomination, let's go ahead and let him get to work rather than wait a week or 10 days or more. We have been at this for weeks. Let's move on to other things. If we asked our constituents, What would you like us to do, take up the Defense authorization bill? Take up an energy bill? Try to work on this deficit problem that is mortgaging their futures? Sit down and negotiate a bipartisan agreement on Social Security? Those would be their priorities. Let's move ahead tonight, have the cloture vote, have a vote on Mr. Bolton, and move forward and plan for when we come back from the recess, addressing the issues that are important to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lieberman today in introducing an amended version of the Climate Stewardship Act, which we introduced in February. The legislation we submit today incorporates the provisions of S. 342, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005, in its entirety, along with a new comprehensive title regarding the development and deployment of climate change reduction technologies. This new title, when combined with the ``cap and trade'' provisions of the previously introduced bill, will promote the commercialization of technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and increase the Nation's energy independence. And, it will help to keep America at the cutting edge of innovation where the jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy are to be found. In fact, the ``cap and trade'' provisions and the new technology title are complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will allow us to usher in an new energy era, an era of responsible and innovative energy production and use that will yield enormous environmental, economic, and diplomatic benefits. The ``cap and trade'' portion provides the economic driver for existing and new technologies capable of supplying reliable and clean energy and making the best use of America's available energy resources. Because of the multiple benefits promised by this comprehensive program, we expect that the new bill will attract additional support for the vital purposes of the Climate Stewardship Act. We simply need the political will to match the public's concern about climate change, the economic interests of business and consumers, and American technological ingenuity and expertise. Our comprehensive bill sets forth a sound course toward a productive, secure, and clean energy future. Its provisions are based on the important efforts undertaken by academia, Government, and business over the past decade to determine the best ways and means towards This energy future. Most of these studies have shared two common findings. First, significant reductions in greenhouse gases--well beyond the modest goals of our bill--are feasible over the next 10 to 20 years using technologies available today. Second, the most important technological deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the next two decades lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, and biofuels. For example, in the electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions, major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving the efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors designs for nuclear power, expanding use of renewable power sources, and significantly reducing electricity demand with the use of energy-saving technologies currently available to residential and commercial consumers. These clean technologies need to be promoted and that is what spurs our action today. Before describing the details of this legislation, I think it is important to talk about what has occurred since the Senate vote on this issue in October 2003. For example, the scientific evidence of human- induced climate change has grown even more abundant. But just since February of this year, when I highlighted the results of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, even more startling evidence about the Arctic region has been revealed. In a recent Congressional briefing, Dr. Robert Corell, chair of Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, presented recent data indicating that climate change in the Arctic is occurring more rapidly than previously thought. Annual average arctic temperatures have increased at twice the rate of global temperatures over the past several decades, with some regions increasing by five to ten times the global average. The latest observations show Alaska's 2004 June-July-August mean temperature to be nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit, 2.8 degrees Celsius, above the 1971-2000 historic mean, and permafrost temperature increasing enough to cause it to start melting. Dr. Corell said the Greenland ice sheet is melting more rapidly than thought even 5 years ago, and that the climate models indicate that warming over Greenland is likely to be up to three times the global average, with warming projected to be in the range of 5 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit, 3 to 6 degrees Celsius, which will most certainly lead to sea-level rise. These are remarkable new scientific findings. It isn't surprising that just this past Tuesday, indigenous leaders from Arctic regions called on the European Union to do more to fight global warming and to consider giving aid to their peoples, saying their way of life is at risk. Global warming is said to be causing the arrival in the far north of mosquitoes bearing infectious diseases. And in Scandinavia, more frequent rains in the winter are causing sheets of ice to develop on top of snow, causing animals to die of hunger because they cannot reach the grass underneath. We are not asking for sympathy, said Larisa Abrutina of the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North. We are asking each country in the world to examine if it is truly doing its part to slow climate change. The efforts taking place globally to address climate change have gained even greater prominence. For example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has made climate change one of his top two issues during his Presidency of the G8. Mr. Blair's commitment to addressing climate change should be commended. He has chosen to take action and not to hide behind the uncertainties that the science community will soon resolve. The Prime Minister made it clear in a January speech at World Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said: . . . if America wants the rest of the world to be a part of the agenda it has set, it must be a part of their agenda too. The top two issues that Prime Minister Blair has chosen to deal with are climate change and poverty in Africa. It is interesting to note that a recent article in the New York Times highlighted the connection between the two issues. The article highlights that a 50-year-long drying trend is likely to continue and appears to be tightly linked to substantial warming of the Indian Ocean. According to Dr. James Hurrell, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research: . . . the Indian Oceans shows very clear and dramatic warming into the future, which means more and more drought for southern Africa. It is consistent with what we would expect from an increase in greenhouse gases. It appears that Mr. Blair's two priorities are quickly becoming one enormous challenge. In its September 2004 issue, The National Geographic devotes 74 pages laying out in great detail the necessity of tackling our planet's problem of global warming. In an introductory piece, Editor-in-Chief Bill Allen described just how important he thinks this particular series of articles is: Why would I publish articles that make people angry enough to stop subscribing? That's easy. These three stories cover subjects that are too important to ignore. From Antarctica to Alaska to Bangladesh, a global warming trend is altering habitats, with devastating ecological and economic effects. . . This isn't science fiction or a Hollywood movie. We're not going to show you waves swamping the Statue of Liberty. But we are going to take you all over the world to show you the hard truth as scientists see it. I can live with some canceled memberships. I'd have a harder time looking at myself in the mirror if I didn't bring you the biggest story in geography today. The articles highlight many interesting facts. Dr. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University collects ice cores from glaciers around the world, including the famed snows of Kilimanjaro, which could vanish in 15 years. According to Dr. Thompson, ``What glaciers are telling us, is that it is now warmer than it has been in the past 2,000 years over vast areas of the planet.'' Many of the ice cores he has in his freezer may soon contain the only remains of the glaciers from which they came from. Highlighted quotes from the articles include: Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime. The future breakdown of the thermohaline circulation remains a disturbing possibility. More than a hundred million people worldwide live within 3 feet of mean sea level. At some point, as temperatures continue to rise, species will have no room to run. The natural cycles of interdependent creatures may fall out of sync. We will have a better idea of the actual changes in 30 years. But it is going to be a very different world. Global warming demands urgent action on all fronts, and we have an obligation to promote the technologies that can help us meet the challenge. Our aim has never been simply to introduce climate stewardship legislation. Rather our purpose is to have legislation enacted to begin to address the urgent global warming crisis that is upon us. This effort cannot be about political expediency. It must be about practical realities and addressing the most pressing issue facing not only our nation, but the world. We believe that our legislation offers practical and effective solutions and we urge each members careful consideration and support. I will include for the Record a more detailed description of the various components of the new technology title. However, I do want to describe some of the key provisions designed to enhance innovation and commercialization in key areas. These include zero and low greenhouse gas emitting power generation, such as nuclear, coal gasification, solar and other renewables, geological carbon sequestration, and biofuels: The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce, through the former Technology Administration, which would be renamed the Innovation Administration, to develop and implement new policies that foster technological innovation to address global warming. These new directives include: developing and implementing strategic plans to promote technological innovation; identifying and removing barriers to the research, development, and commercialization of key technologies; prioritizing and maximizing key federal R&D programs to aid innovation; (establishing public/private partnerships to meet vital innovation goals; and promoting national infrastructure and educational initiatives that support innovation objectives. It also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to establish public/ private partnerships to promote the commercialization of climate change technologies by working with industry to advance the design and demonstration of zero and low emission technologies in the transportation and electric generation sectors. Specifically, the Secretary would be authorized to partner with industry to share the cost, 50/50, of ``first-of-a-kind'' designs for advanced coal, nuclear energy, solar and biofuels. Moreover, each time that a utility builds a plant based on the ``first-of-a-kind engineering'' design authorized by this bill, a ``royalty'' type payment will be paid by the utility to reimburse the original amount provided by the Government. After the detail design phase is complete, the Secretary would be able to provide loans or loan guarantees, Up to 80 percent, for the construction of these new designs including three nuclear plant designs certified by the NRC that would produce zero greenhouse gas emissions; three advanced coal gasification plants with carbon capture and storage that make use of our abundant coal resources while storing carbon emissions underground; three large scale solar energy plants to begin to tap the enormous potential of this completely clean energy source; and three large scale facilities to produce the clean, efficient, and plentiful biofuel of the future--cellulosic ethanol. The loan program will be administered by a Climate Technology Financing Board, whose membership will include the Secretary of Energy, a representative from the Climate Change Credit Corporation, as would be created in the bill, and others with pertinent expertise. Once each plant is operational, the private partner will be obligated to pay back these loans from the government, as is the case with any construction loan. I think it is important to be very clear about this ambitious, but necessary, technology title. We intend that much, if not all, of the costs of the demonstration initiatives, along with the loan program, will be financed by the early sale of emission allowances through the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program, so that industry and the market will foot much of the bill, not the taxpayers. And, as I already mentioned, the bill requires that any Federal money used to build plants will be repaid by the utility when the plant becomes operational. Finally, the bill contains a mechanism requiring utilities to pay reimbursement ``royalties'' as they build plants based on zero and low emission designs created with Federal assistance. These funding provisions are more fair and certain than requiring taxpayers to cover the entire costs of these programs and depending upon future appropriations. But there will be some costs involved. That is why it is important to weigh these expenditures against the staggering cost of inaction on global warming. I think we will find more than a justified cost-benefit outcome. In addition to promoting new or underutilized technologies, the bill also includes a provision to aid in the deployment of available and efficient energy technologies. This would be accomplished through a ``reverse auction'' provision, which would establish a cost effective and proven mechanism for Federal procurement and incentives. Providers' ``bids'' would be evaluated by the Secretary on their ability to reduce, eliminate, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. The ``reverse auction'' program would be funded initially by the taxpayers but eventually would be funded by the proceeds from the annual auction of tradeable allowances conducted by the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program. I want to clarify that this bill doesn't propose to dictate to industry what is economically prudent for their particular operations. Rather, it provides a basis for the selection and implementation of their own market-based solutions, using a flexible emissions trading system model that has successfully reduced acid rain pollution under the Clean Air Act at a fraction of anticipated costs--less than 10 percent of the costs that some had predicted when the legislation was enacted. That successful model can and must be used to address this urgent and growing global warming crisis. The ``cap and trade'' approach to emission management is a method endorsed by Congress and free-market proponents for over 15 years after it was first applied to sulfur dioxide pollution. Applying the same model to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a matter of good policy and simple, common sense. It is an approach endorsed by industry leaders such as Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, one of the largest companies in the U.S. Moreover, using the proven market principles that underlie cap and trade will harness American ingenuity and innovation and do more to spur the innovation and commercialization of advanced environmental technologies than any system of previous energy-bill style subsidies that Congress can devise. Three decades of assorted energy bills prove that while subsidies to promote alternative energy technologies may sometimes help, alone they are not transformational. In the 1970s, Americans were waiting in line for limited supplies of high priced gasoline. We created a Department of Energy to help us find a better way. Yet today, 30 years later, we remain wedded to fossil fuels, economically beholden to the Middle East and we continue to alter the makeup of the upper atmosphere with the ever-increasing volume of greenhouse gas emissions. Our dividend is continued energy dependence and global warming that places our nation and the globe at enormous environmental and economic risk. Not a very good deal. Cap and trade is the transformational mechanism for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, protecting the global environment, diversifying the Nation's energy mix, advancing our economy, and spurring the development and deployment of new and improved technologies that can do the job. It is indispensable to the task before us. The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act does not prescribe the exact formula by which allowances will be allocated under a cap and trade system. This should be determined administratively through a process developed with great care to achieve the principles and purposes of the Act. This includes assuring that high emitting utilities have ample incentives to clean up and can make emission reductions economically and that low emitting utilities are treated justly and recognized for their efficiency. Getting this balance right will not be easy, but it can and must be done. The fact remains that, if enacted, the bill's emission cap will not go into effect for another 5 years. In the interim there is much that the country can and should do to promote the most environmentally and economically promising technologies. This includes removing unnecessary barriers to commercialization of new technologies so that new plants, products, and processes can move more efficiently from design and development, to demonstration and, ultimately, to the marketplace. Again, without cap and trade, these efforts will pale, but the new technology title we propose will work hand in glove with the emission cap and trade system to meet our objectives. As I mentioned, the new title contains a host of measures to promote the commercialization of zero and low-emission electric generation technologies, including nuclear, clean coal, solar and other renewable energies, and biofuels. I want to take some time to address the bill's nuclear provisions. Although these provisions are only part of the comprehensive technology package, I am sure they will be the focus of much attention. I know that some of our friends in the environmental community maintain strong objections to nuclear energy, even though it supplies nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. and much higher proportions in places such as France, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland--countries that aren't exactly known for their environmental disregard. But the fact is, nuclear is clean, producing zero emissions, while the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity produces approximately 33 percent of the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to air pollution affecting our communities The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude of the threat posed by global warming which most regard as the greatest environmental threat to the planet. The International Energy Agency estimates that the world's energy consumption is expected to rise over 65 percent within the next 15 years. If the demand for electricity is met using traditional coal- fired power plants, not only will we fail to reduce carbon emissions as necessary, the level of carbon in the atmosphere will skyrocket, intensifying the greenhouse effect and the global warming it produces. As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S. electricity produced by this zero emission technology will actually decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not replaced with higher emitting alternatives. I, for one, believe it can and should play an even greater role, not because I have some inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming. I would like to submit for the record a piece written by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. Mr. Kristof made the following observation: ``It's increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green.'' He goes on to quote James Lovelock, a British scientist who created the Gaia principle that holds the earth is a self-regulating organism. He quoted Mr. Lovelock as follows: I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendents. Only one immediately available source does not cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy. I have always been and will remain a committed supporter of solar and renewable energy. Renewables hold great promise, and, indeed, the technology title contains equally strong incentives in their favor. But today solar and renewables account for only about 3 percent our energy mix. We have a long way to go, and that is one of the objectives of this legislation--to help promote these energy technologies. I want to stress nothing in this title alters, in any way, the responsibilities and authorities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Safety and security will remain, as they should, paramount in the citing, design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. And the winnowing effect of the free market, as it should, will still determine which technologies succeed or fail in the market place. But the idea that a zero-emission technology such as nuclear has little or no place in our energy mix is just as antiquated, out-of-step and counter-productive as our continued dependence on fossil fuels. Should it prevail, our climate stewardship and clean air goals will be virtually impossible to meet. The environmental benefit of nuclear energy is exactly why during his tenure, my friend, Morris Udall, one of the greatest environmental champions the United States has ever known, sponsored legislation in the House, as I did in the Senate, to develop a standardized nuclear reactor that would maximize safety, security, and efficiency. The Department of Energy has done much of the work called for by that legislation. Now it is time for the logical next steps. The new title of this legislation promotes these steps by authorizing Federal partnership to develop first of a kind engineering for the latest reactor designs, and then to construct three demonstration plants. Once the demonstration has been made, free-market competition will take it from there. And the bill provides similar partnership mechanisms for the other clean technologies, so we are in no way favoring one technology over another. No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the Federal Government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize new and beneficial nuclear designs. I have spent 20 years in this body fighting for the responsible use of taxpayer dollars and against porkbarrel spending and corporate welfare. I will continue to do so. The fact remains that fossil fuels have been subsidized for many decades at levels that can scarcely be calculated. The enormous economic costs of damage caused by air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil-fueled technologies. Yet it is a cost that we all bear, too often in terms of ill-health and diminished quality of life. That is simply a matter of fact. It is also inescapable that the ability to ``externalize'' these costs places clean competitors at a great disadvantage. Based on that fact, and in light of the enormous environmental and economic risk posed by global warming, I believe that providing zero and low emission technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market place where they can compete, and either sink or swim, is responsible public policy, and a matter of simple public necessity, particularly, as we enact a cap on carbon emissions. The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarine for more than 50 years and has an impressive safety and performance record. The Naval Reactors program has demonstrated that nuclear power can be done safely. One of the underpinning of its safety record is the approach used in its reactor designs, which is to learn and build upon previous designs. Unfortunately for the commercial nuclear industry, they have not had the opportunity to use such an approach since the industry has not been able to build a reactor in over the past 25 years. This lapse in construction has led us to where we are today with the industry's aging infrastructure. As we have learned from other industries, this in itself represents a great risk to public safety. I want to close my comments on the nuclear provisions with two thoughts. A recent article in Technology Review seems particularly pertinent to those with reservations about nuclear power. It stated: The best way for doubters to control a new technology is to embrace it, lest it remain in the hands of the enthusiasts. This is particularly sage advice because, frankly, the facts make it inescapably clear--those who are serious about the problem of global warming are serious about finding a solution. And the rule of nuclear energy which has no emissions has to be given due consideration. Mr. President, don't simply take my word regarding the magnitude of the global warming problem. Consider the National Academy of Sciences which reported in 2001 that: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities. . . . Also consider the warning on NASA's website which states: With the possible exception of another world war, a giant asteroid, or an incurable plague, global warming may be the single largest threat to our planet. Consider the words of the EPA that Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forest, crop yields and water supplies. . . . And, let's consider the views of President Bush's Science Advisor, Dr. John Marburger who says that, Global warming exists, an we have to do something about it, and what we have to do about it is reduce carbon dioxide. Again, the chief science advisor to the President of the United States says that global warming exists, and what we have to do about it is to reduce carbon dioxide. The road ahead on climate change is a difficult and challenging one. However, with the appropriate investments in technology and the innovation process, we can and will prevail. Innovation and technology have helped us face many of our national challenges in the past, and can be equally important in this latest global challenge. Advocates of the status quo seem to suggest that we do nothing, or next to nothing, about global warming because we don't know how bad the problem might become, and many of the worst effects of climate change are expected to occur in the future. This attitude reflects a selfish, live-for-today attitude unworthy of a great nation, and thankfully, not one practiced by preceding generations of Americans who devoted themselves to securing a bright and prosperous tomorrow for future generations, not just their own. When looking back at Earth from space, the astronauts of Apollo 11 could see features such as the Great Wall of China and forest fires dotting the globe. They were moved by how small, solitary and fragile the earth looked from space. Our small, solitary and fragile planet is the only one we have and the United States of America is privileged to lead in all areas bearing on the advance of mankind. And lead again, we must, Mr. President. It is our privilege and sacred obligation as Americans. I ask unanimous consent an editorial from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lieberman today in introducing an amended version of the Climate Stewardship Act, which we introduced in February. The legislation we submit today incorporates the provisions of S. 342, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005, in its entirety, along with a new comprehensive title regarding the development and deployment of climate change reduction technologies. This new title, when combined with the ``cap and trade'' provisions of the previously introduced bill, will promote the commercialization of technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and increase the Nation's energy independence. And, it will help to keep America at the cutting edge of innovation where the jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy are to be found. In fact, the ``cap and trade'' provisions and the new technology title are complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will allow us to usher in an new energy era, an era of responsible and innovative energy production and use that will yield enormous environmental, economic, and diplomatic benefits. The ``cap and trade'' portion provides the economic driver for existing and new technologies capable of supplying reliable and clean energy and making the best use of America's available energy resources. Because of the multiple benefits promised by this comprehensive program, we expect that the new bill will attract additional support for the vital purposes of the Climate Stewardship Act. We simply need the political will to match the public's concern about climate change, the economic interests of business and consumers, and American technological ingenuity and expertise. Our comprehensive bill sets forth a sound course toward a productive, secure, and clean energy future. Its provisions are based on the important efforts undertaken by academia, Government, and business over the past decade to determine the best ways and means towards This energy future. Most of these studies have shared two common findings. First, significant reductions in greenhouse gases--well beyond the modest goals of our bill--are feasible over the next 10 to 20 years using technologies available today. Second, the most important technological deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the next two decades lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, and biofuels. For example, in the electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions, major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving the efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors designs for nuclear power, expanding use of renewable power sources, and significantly reducing electricity demand with the use of energy-saving technologies currently available to residential and commercial consumers. These clean technologies need to be promoted and that is what spurs our action today. Before describing the details of this legislation, I think it is important to talk about what has occurred since the Senate vote on this issue in October 2003. For example, the scientific evidence of human- induced climate change has grown even more abundant. But just since February of this year, when I highlighted the results of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, even more startling evidence about the Arctic region has been revealed. In a recent Congressional briefing, Dr. Robert Corell, chair of Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, presented recent data indicating that climate change in the Arctic is occurring more rapidly than previously thought. Annual average arctic temperatures have increased at twice the rate of global temperatures over the past several decades, with some regions increasing by five to ten times the global average. The latest observations show Alaska's 2004 June-July-August mean temperature to be nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit, 2.8 degrees Celsius, above the 1971-2000 historic mean, and permafrost temperature increasing enough to cause it to start melting. Dr. Corell said the Greenland ice sheet is melting more rapidly than thought even 5 years ago, and that the climate models indicate that warming over Greenland is likely to be up to three times the global average, with warming projected to be in the range of 5 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit, 3 to 6 degrees Celsius, which will most certainly lead to sea-level rise. These are remarkable new scientific findings. It isn't surprising that just this past Tuesday, indigenous leaders from Arctic regions called on the European Union to do more to fight global warming and to consider giving aid to their peoples, saying their way of life is at risk. Global warming is said to be causing the arrival in the far north of mosquitoes bearing infectious diseases. And in Scandinavia, more frequent rains in the winter are causing sheets of ice to develop on top of snow, causing animals to die of hunger because they cannot reach the grass underneath. We are not asking for sympathy, said Larisa Abrutina of the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North. We are asking each country in the world to examine if it is truly doing its part to slow climate change. The efforts taking place globally to address climate change have gained even greater prominence. For example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has made climate change one of his top two issues during his Presidency of the G8. Mr. Blair's commitment to addressing climate change should be commended. He has chosen to take action and not to hide behind the uncertainties that the science community will soon resolve. The Prime Minister made it clear in a January speech at World Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said: . . . if America wants the rest of the world to be a part of the agenda it has set, it must be a part of their agenda too. The top two issues that Prime Minister Blair has chosen to deal with are climate change and poverty in Africa. It is interesting to note that a recent article in the New York Times highlighted the connection between the two issues. The article highlights that a 50-year-long drying trend is likely to continue and appears to be tightly linked to substantial warming of the Indian Ocean. According to Dr. James Hurrell, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research: . . . the Indian Oceans shows very clear and dramatic warming into the future, which means more and more drought for southern Africa. It is consistent with what we would expect from an increase in greenhouse gases. It appears that Mr. Blair's two priorities are quickly becoming one enormous challenge. In its September 2004 issue, The National Geographic devotes 74 pages laying out in great detail the necessity of tackling our planet's problem of global warming. In an introductory piece, Editor-in-Chief Bill Allen described just how important he thinks this particular series of articles is: Why would I publish articles that make people angry enough to stop subscribing? That's easy. These three stories cover subjects that are too important to ignore. From Antarctica to Alaska to Bangladesh, a global warming trend is altering habitats, with devastating ecological and economic effects. . . This isn't science fiction or a Hollywood movie. We're not going to show you waves swamping the Statue of Liberty. But we are going to take you all over the world to show you the hard truth as scientists see it. I can live with some canceled memberships. I'd have a harder time looking at myself in the mirror if I didn't bring you the biggest story in geography today. The articles highlight many interesting facts. Dr. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University collects ice cores from glaciers around the world, including the famed snows of Kilimanjaro, which could vanish in 15 years. According to Dr. Thompson, ``What glaciers are telling us, is that it is now warmer than it has been in the past 2,000 years over vast areas of the planet.'' Many of the ice cores he has in his freezer may soon contain the only remains of the glaciers from which they came from. Highlighted quotes from the articles include: Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime. The future breakdown of the thermohaline circulation remains a disturbing possibility. More than a hundred million people worldwide live within 3 feet of mean sea level. At some point, as temperatures continue to rise, species will have no room to run. The natural cycles of interdependent creatures may fall out of sync. We will have a better idea of the actual changes in 30 years. But it is going to be a very different world. Global warming demands urgent action on all fronts, and we have an obligation to promote the technologies that can help us meet the challenge. Our aim has never been simply to introduce climate stewardship legislation. Rather our purpose is to have legislation enacted to begin to address the urgent global warming crisis that is upon us. This effort cannot be about political expediency. It must be about practical realities and addressing the most pressing issue facing not only our nation, but the world. We believe that our legislation offers practical and effective solutions and we urge each members careful consideration and support. I will include for the Record a more detailed description of the various components of the new technology title. However, I do want to describe some of the key provisions designed to enhance innovation and commercialization in key areas. These include zero and low greenhouse gas emitting power generation, such as nuclear, coal gasification, solar and other renewables, geological carbon sequestration, and biofuels: The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce, through the former Technology Administration, which would be renamed the Innovation Administration, to develop and implement new policies that foster technological innovation to address global warming. These new directives include: developing and implementing strategic plans to promote technological innovation; identifying and removing barriers to the research, development, and commercialization of key technologies; prioritizing and maximizing key federal R&D programs to aid innovation; (establishing public/private partnerships to meet vital innovation goals; and promoting national infrastructure and educational initiatives that support innovation objectives. It also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to establish public/ private partnerships to promote the commercialization of climate change technologies by working with industry to advance the design and demonstration of zero and low emission technologies in the transportation and electric generation sectors. Specifically, the Secretary would be authorized to partner with industry to share the cost, 50/50, of ``first-of-a-kind'' designs for advanced coal, nuclear energy, solar and biofuels. Moreover, each time that a utility builds a plant based on the ``first-of-a-kind engineering'' design authorized by this bill, a ``royalty'' type payment will be paid by the utility to reimburse the original amount provided by the Government. After the detail design phase is complete, the Secretary would be able to provide loans or loan guarantees, Up to 80 percent, for the construction of these new designs including three nuclear plant designs certified by the NRC that would produce zero greenhouse gas emissions; three advanced coal gasification plants with carbon capture and storage that make use of our abundant coal resources while storing carbon emissions underground; three large scale solar energy plants to begin to tap the enormous potential of this completely clean energy source; and three large scale facilities to produce the clean, efficient, and plentiful biofuel of the future--cellulosic ethanol. The loan program will be administered by a Climate Technology Financing Board, whose membership will include the Secretary of Energy, a representative from the Climate Change Credit Corporation, as would be created in the bill, and others with pertinent expertise. Once each plant is operational, the private partner will be obligated to pay back these loans from the government, as is the case with any construction loan. I think it is important to be very clear about this ambitious, but necessary, technology title. We intend that much, if not all, of the costs of the demonstration initiatives, along with the loan program, will be financed by the early sale of emission allowances through the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program, so that industry and the market will foot much of the bill, not the taxpayers. And, as I already mentioned, the bill requires that any Federal money used to build plants will be repaid by the utility when the plant becomes operational. Finally, the bill contains a mechanism requiring utilities to pay reimbursement ``royalties'' as they build plants based on zero and low emission designs created with Federal assistance. These funding provisions are more fair and certain than requiring taxpayers to cover the entire costs of these programs and depending upon future appropriations. But there will be some costs involved. That is why it is important to weigh these expenditures against the staggering cost of inaction on global warming. I think we will find more than a justified cost-benefit outcome. In addition to promoting new or underutilized technologies, the bill also includes a provision to aid in the deployment of available and efficient energy technologies. This would be accomplished through a ``reverse auction'' provision, which would establish a cost effective and proven mechanism for Federal procurement and incentives. Providers' ``bids'' would be evaluated by the Secretary on their ability to reduce, eliminate, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. The ``reverse auction'' program would be funded initially by the taxpayers but eventually would be funded by the proceeds from the annual auction of tradeable allowances conducted by the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program. I want to clarify that this bill doesn't propose to dictate to industry what is economically prudent for their particular operations. Rather, it provides a basis for the selection and implementation of their own market-based solutions, using a flexible emissions trading system model that has successfully reduced acid rain pollution under the Clean Air Act at a fraction of anticipated costs--less than 10 percent of the costs that some had predicted when the legislation was enacted. That successful model can and must be used to address this urgent and growing global warming crisis. The ``cap and trade'' approach to emission management is a method endorsed by Congress and free-market proponents for over 15 years after it was first applied to sulfur dioxide pollution. Applying the same model to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a matter of good policy and simple, common sense. It is an approach endorsed by industry leaders such as Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, one of the largest companies in the U.S. Moreover, using the proven market principles that underlie cap and trade will harness American ingenuity and innovation and do more to spur the innovation and commercialization of advanced environmental technologies than any system of previous energy-bill style subsidies that Congress can devise. Three decades of assorted energy bills prove that while subsidies to promote alternative energy technologies may sometimes help, alone they are not transformational. In the 1970s, Americans were waiting in line for limited supplies of high priced gasoline. We created a Department of Energy to help us find a better way. Yet today, 30 years later, we remain wedded to fossil fuels, economically beholden to the Middle East and we continue to alter the makeup of the upper atmosphere with the ever-increasing volume of greenhouse gas emissions. Our dividend is continued energy dependence and global warming that places our nation and the globe at enormous environmental and economic risk. Not a very good deal. Cap and trade is the transformational mechanism for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, protecting the global environment, diversifying the Nation's energy mix, advancing our economy, and spurring the development and deployment of new and improved technologies that can do the job. It is indispensable to the task before us. The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act does not prescribe the exact formula by which allowances will be allocated under a cap and trade system. This should be determined administratively through a process developed with great care to achieve the principles and purposes of the Act. This includes assuring that high emitting utilities have ample incentives to clean up and can make emission reductions economically and that low emitting utilities are treated justly and recognized for their efficiency. Getting this balance right will not be easy, but it can and must be done. The fact remains that, if enacted, the bill's emission cap will not go into effect for another 5 years. In the interim there is much that the country can and should do to promote the most environmentally and economically promising technologies. This includes removing unnecessary barriers to commercialization of new technologies so that new plants, products, and processes can move more efficiently from design and development, to demonstration and, ultimately, to the marketplace. Again, without cap and trade, these efforts will pale, but the new technology title we propose will work hand in glove with the emission cap and trade system to meet our objectives. As I mentioned, the new title contains a host of measures to promote the commercialization of zero and low-emission electric generation technologies, including nuclear, clean coal, solar and other renewable energies, and biofuels. I want to take some time to address the bill's nuclear provisions. Although these provisions are only part of the comprehensive technology package, I am sure they will be the focus of much attention. I know that some of our friends in the environmental community maintain strong objections to nuclear energy, even though it supplies nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. and much higher proportions in places such as France, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland--countries that aren't exactly known for their environmental disregard. But the fact is, nuclear is clean, producing zero emissions, while the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity produces approximately 33 percent of the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to air pollution affecting our communities The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude of the threat posed by global warming which most regard as the greatest environmental threat to the planet. The International Energy Agency estimates that the world's energy consumption is expected to rise over 65 percent within the next 15 years. If the demand for electricity is met using traditional coal- fired power plants, not only will we fail to reduce carbon emissions as necessary, the level of carbon in the atmosphere will skyrocket, intensifying the greenhouse effect and the global warming it produces. As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S. electricity produced by this zero emission technology will actually decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not replaced with higher emitting alternatives. I, for one, believe it can and should play an even greater role, not because I have some inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming. I would like to submit for the record a piece written by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. Mr. Kristof made the following observation: ``It's increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green.'' He goes on to quote James Lovelock, a British scientist who created the Gaia principle that holds the earth is a self-regulating organism. He quoted Mr. Lovelock as follows: I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendents. Only one immediately available source does not cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy. I have always been and will remain a committed supporter of solar and renewable energy. Renewables hold great promise, and, indeed, the technology title contains equally strong incentives in their favor. But today solar and renewables account for only about 3 percent our energy mix. We have a long way to go, and that is one of the objectives of this legislation--to help promote these energy technologies. I want to stress nothing in this title alters, in any way, the responsibilities and authorities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Safety and security will remain, as they should, paramount in the citing, design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. And the winnowing effect of the free market, as it should, will still determine which technologies succeed or fail in the market place. But the idea that a zero-emission technology such as nuclear has little or no place in our energy mix is just as antiquated, out-of-step and counter-productive as our continued dependence on fossil fuels. Should it prevail, our climate stewardship and clean air goals will be virtually impossible to meet. The environmental benefit of nuclear energy is exactly why during his tenure, my friend, Morris Udall, one of the greatest environmental champions the United States has ever known, sponsored legislation in the House, as I did in the Senate, to develop a standardized nuclear reactor that would maximize safety, security, and efficiency. The Department of Energy has done much of the work called for by that legislation. Now it is time for the logical next steps. The new title of this legislation promotes these steps by authorizing Federal partnership to develop first of a kind engineering for the latest reactor designs, and then to construct three demonstration plants. Once the demonstration has been made, free-market competition will take it from there. And the bill provides similar partnership mechanisms for the other clean technologies, so we are in no way favoring one technology over another. No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the Federal Government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize new and beneficial nuclear designs. I have spent 20 years in this body fighting for the responsible use of taxpayer dollars and against porkbarrel spending and corporate welfare. I will continue to do so. The fact remains that fossil fuels have been subsidized for many decades at levels that can scarcely be calculated. The enormous economic costs of damage caused by air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil-fueled technologies. Yet it is a cost that we all bear, too often in terms of ill-health and diminished quality of life. That is simply a matter of fact. It is also inescapable that the ability to ``externalize'' these costs places clean competitors at a great disadvantage. Based on that fact, and in light of the enormous environmental and economic risk posed by global warming, I believe that providing zero and low emission technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market place where they can compete, and either sink or swim, is responsible public policy, and a matter of simple public necessity, particularly, as we enact a cap on carbon emissions. The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarine for more than 50 years and has an impressive safety and performance record. The Naval Reactors program has demonstrated that nuclear power can be done safely. One of the underpinning of its safety record is the approach used in its reactor designs, which is to learn and build upon previous designs. Unfortunately for the commercial nuclear industry, they have not had the opportunity to use such an approach since the industry has not been able to build a reactor in over the past 25 years. This lapse in construction has led us to where we are today with the industry's aging infrastructure. As we have learned from other industries, this in itself represents a great risk to public safety. I want to close my comments on the nuclear provisions with two thoughts. A recent article in Technology Review seems particularly pertinent to those with reservations about nuclear power. It stated: The best way for doubters to control a new technology is to embrace it, lest it remain in the hands of the enthusiasts. This is particularly sage advice because, frankly, the facts make it inescapably clear--those who are serious about the problem of global warming are serious about finding a solution. And the rule of nuclear energy which has no emissions has to be given due consideration. Mr. President, don't simply take my word regarding the magnitude of the global warming problem. Consider the National Academy of Sciences which reported in 2001 that: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities. . . . Also consider the warning on NASA's website which states: With the possible exception of another world war, a giant asteroid, or an incurable plague, global warming may be the single largest threat to our planet. Consider the words of the EPA that Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forest, crop yields and water supplies. . . . And, let's consider the views of President Bush's Science Advisor, Dr. John Marburger who says that, Global warming exists, an we have to do something about it, and what we have to do about it is reduce carbon dioxide. Again, the chief science advisor to the President of the United States says that global warming exists, and what we have to do about it is to reduce carbon dioxide. The road ahead on climate change is a difficult and challenging one. However, with the appropriate investments in technology and the innovation process, we can and will prevail. Innovation and technology have helped us face many of our national challenges in the past, and can be equally important in this latest global challenge. Advocates of the status quo seem to suggest that we do nothing, or next to nothing, about global warming because we don't know how bad the problem might become, and many of the worst effects of climate change are expected to occur in the future. This attitude reflects a selfish, live-for-today attitude unworthy of a great nation, and thankfully, not one practiced by preceding generations of Americans who devoted themselves to securing a bright and prosperous tomorrow for future generations, not just their own. When looking back at Earth from space, the astronauts of Apollo 11 could see features such as the Great Wall of China and forest fires dotting the globe. They were moved by how small, solitary and fragile the earth looked from space. Our small, solitary and fragile planet is the only one we have and the United States of America is privileged to lead in all areas bearing on the advance of mankind. And lead again, we must, Mr. President. It is our privilege and sacred obligation as Americans. I ask unanimous consent an editorial from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Stevens in introducing the Clean Sports Act of 2005. The chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, Congressman Davis, and the ranking member of that committee, Congressman Waxman, are introducing a companion bill today in the House. The purpose of this bill is to protect the integrity of professional sports and, more importantly, the health and safety of our Nation's youth, who, for better or for worse, see professional athletes as role models. The legislation would achieve that goal by establishing minimum standards for the testing of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances by major professional sports leagues. By adhering to--and hopefully exceeding--these minimum standards, the Nation's major professional sports leagues would send a strong signal to the public that performance-enhancing drugs have no legitimate role in American sports. This bill would prohibit our country's major professional sports leagues--the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League--from operating if they do not meet the minimum testing requirements set forth therein. Those standards would be comprised of five key components: the independence of the entity or entities that perform the leagues' drug tests; testing for a comprehensive list of doping substances and methods; a strong system of unannounced testing; significant penalties that discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs; and a fair and effective adjudication process for athletes accused of doping. These elements are crucial components of any credible performance-enhancing drug testing policy. More specifically, the bill would require all major professional sports leagues to have an independent third party administer their performance-enhancing drug tests. The legislation would further require that samples provided by athletes be tested by laboratories approved by the United States Anti-Doping Agency--USADA--and for substances banned by USADA. In addition, the bill would require not fewer than three unannounced tests during a league's season of play, and at least two unannounced tests during the off season. Under this legislation, if a player were to test positive for a banned performance-enhancing substance, that player would be suspended for 2 years for the first violation and banned for life for a second violation. Finally, if any player were to test positive, the professional sports league would be obligated to ensure that the player would have substantial due process rights including the opportunity for a hearing and right to counsel. To ensure that the major professional sports leagues meet the highest standards of performance-enhancing drug testing, the bill would require each professional sports league to consult with USADA in developing its drug testing standards and procedures, its protocols for tests in the off season, and its athlete adjudication program. For 5 years, USADA has served as the official antidoping agency for Olympic sports in the United States. In that role, USADA has shown a tremendous dedication to eliminating doping in sports through research, education, testing, and adjudication efforts. The expertise that it has developed over the past half-decade would serve this country's professional sports leagues well. A violation of this legislation would be treated as a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission would have the ability to either obtain an injunction against the league that is in violation of the bill or seek penalties of up to $1 million per violation. Any enforcement mechanism that is not as strong as this would simply not be effective to ensure that these multi-billion-dollar businesses adhere to the minimum standards set forth in the legislation. Finally, the bill would give the Office of National Drug Control Policy--ONDCP--the ability to add other professional sports leagues as well as certain college sports if the ONDCP were to determine that such additions would prevent the use of performance-enhancing substances by high school, college, or professional athletes. The bill would also require the United States Boxing Commission, upon its establishment, to promulgate steroids testing standards consistent with those contained in the bill. The need for reforming the drug testing policies of professional sports is clear. However, I introduce this legislation reluctantly. Over a year ago, I stated publicly that the failure of professional sports--and in particular Major League Baseball--to commit to addressing the issue of doping straight on and immediately would motivate Congress to search for legislative remedies. Despite my clear warning and the significant attention that Congress has given to this stain on professional sports, baseball, and other professional leagues have refused to do the right thing. By introducing this bill, I am once again asking the leagues to shore up the integrity of professional sports. I am asking the leagues to realize that what is at stake here is not the sanctity of collective bargaining agreements, but rather the health and safety of America's children. Like it or not, our Nation's kids look to professional athletes as role models and take cues from their actions, both good and bad. I remain hopeful that professional sports will reform their drug testing policies on their own--a modest proposal in the eyes of reasonable people. However, the introduction of this bill demonstrates the continued seriousness with which Congress views this issue. It should be seen as a renewed incentive for the leagues to clean up their sports on their own without Government interference.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Stevens in introducing the Clean Sports Act of 2005. The chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, Congressman Davis, and the ranking member of that committee, Congressman Waxman, are introducing a companion bill today in the House. The purpose of this bill is to protect the integrity of professional sports and, more importantly, the health and safety of our Nation's youth, who, for better or for worse, see professional athletes as role models. The legislation would achieve that goal by establishing minimum standards for the testing of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances by major professional sports leagues. By adhering to--and hopefully exceeding--these minimum standards, the Nation's major professional sports leagues would send a strong signal to the public that performance-enhancing drugs have no legitimate role in American sports. This bill would prohibit our country's major professional sports leagues--the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League--from operating if they do not meet the minimum testing requirements set forth therein. Those standards would be comprised of five key components: the independence of the entity or entities that perform the leagues' drug tests; testing for a comprehensive list of doping substances and methods; a strong system of unannounced testing; significant penalties that discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs; and a fair and effective adjudication process for athletes accused of doping. These elements are crucial components of any credible performance-enhancing drug testing policy. More specifically, the bill would require all major professional sports leagues to have an independent third party administer their performance-enhancing drug tests. The legislation would further require that samples provided by athletes be tested by laboratories approved by the United States Anti-Doping Agency--USADA--and for substances banned by USADA. In addition, the bill would require not fewer than three unannounced tests during a league's season of play, and at least two unannounced tests during the off season. Under this legislation, if a player were to test positive for a banned performance-enhancing substance, that player would be suspended for 2 years for the first violation and banned for life for a second violation. Finally, if any player were to test positive, the professional sports league would be obligated to ensure that the player would have substantial due process rights including the opportunity for a hearing and right to counsel. To ensure that the major professional sports leagues meet the highest standards of performance-enhancing drug testing, the bill would require each professional sports league to consult with USADA in developing its drug testing standards and procedures, its protocols for tests in the off season, and its athlete adjudication program. For 5 years, USADA has served as the official antidoping agency for Olympic sports in the United States. In that role, USADA has shown a tremendous dedication to eliminating doping in sports through research, education, testing, and adjudication efforts. The expertise that it has developed over the past half-decade would serve this country's professional sports leagues well. A violation of this legislation would be treated as a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission would have the ability to either obtain an injunction against the league that is in violation of the bill or seek penalties of up to $1 million per violation. Any enforcement mechanism that is not as strong as this would simply not be effective to ensure that these multi-billion-dollar businesses adhere to the minimum standards set forth in the legislation. Finally, the bill would give the Office of National Drug Control Policy--ONDCP--the ability to add other professional sports leagues as well as certain college sports if the ONDCP were to determine that such additions would prevent the use of performance-enhancing substances by high school, college, or professional athletes. The bill would also require the United States Boxing Commission, upon its establishment, to promulgate steroids testing standards consistent with those contained in the bill. The need for reforming the drug testing policies of professional sports is clear. However, I introduce this legislation reluctantly. Over a year ago, I stated publicly that the failure of professional sports--and in particular Major League Baseball--to commit to addressing the issue of doping straight on and immediately would motivate Congress to search for legislative remedies. Despite my clear warning and the significant attention that Congress has given to this stain on professional sports, baseball, and other professional leagues have refused to do the right thing. By introducing this bill, I am once again asking the leagues to shore up the integrity of professional sports. I am asking the leagues to realize that what is at stake here is not the sanctity of collective bargaining agreements, but rather the health and safety of America's children. Like it or not, our Nation's kids look to professional athletes as role models and take cues from their actions, both good and bad. I remain hopeful that professional sports will reform their drug testing policies on their own--a modest proposal in the eyes of reasonable people. However, the introduction of this bill demonstrates the continued seriousness with which Congress views this issue. It should be seen as a renewed incentive for the leagues to clean up their sports on their own without Government interference.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President today I am pleased to introduce the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2005 to revise and extend the Act. Six years ago a steering committee of Tribal leaders, with extensive consultation by the Indian Health Service, developed a broad consensus in Indian Country about what needs to be done to improve and update health services for Indian people. In the 108th Congress significant progress was made in crafting a bill that was acceptable to all parties but still did not pass the full Senate. In the legislation introduced today, I have tried to address concerns raised last year, but understand that there may still be some differences. I look forward to continuing discussions on these differences, but am introducing the bill to get the process moving because we want to get this legislation enacted. Over the years, Indian health care delivery has greatly expanded and tribes are taking over more health care services on the local level. Nearly 30 years ago, Congress enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to meet the fundamental trust obligation of the United States to ensure that comprehensive health care would be provided to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The health status of Indian people remains much worse than that of other Americans. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is the statutory framework for the Indian health system and covers just about every aspect of health care. It provides grants and scholarships to recruit Indians into health professions serving native communities and funds to expand the health care infrastructure. It lifted the prohibition against Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for health services provided by the Indian Health Service or the Indian tribes, and established health services for Indians in urban areas. Reauthorization of this Act is a high legislative priority. Critical improvements have been provided in this bill including provisions exploring options for long-term care, governing children and senior issues and the following: new sources of funding for recruitment and retention purposes; access to health care, especially for Indian children and low-income Indians; more flexibility in facility construction programs; consolidated behavioral health programs for more comprehensive care; and a Commission to study and recommend the best means of providing Indian health care. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure passage of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President today I am pleased to introduce the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2005 to revise and extend the Act. Six years ago a steering committee of Tribal leaders, with extensive consultation by the Indian Health Service, developed a broad consensus in Indian Country about what needs to be done to improve and update health services for Indian people. In the 108th Congress significant progress was made in crafting a bill that was acceptable to all parties but still did not pass the full Senate. In the legislation introduced today, I have tried to address concerns raised last year, but understand that there may still be some differences. I look forward to continuing discussions on these differences, but am introducing the bill to get the process moving because we want to get this legislation enacted. Over the years, Indian health care delivery has greatly expanded and tribes are taking over more health care services on the local level. Nearly 30 years ago, Congress enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to meet the fundamental trust obligation of the United States to ensure that comprehensive health care would be provided to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The health status of Indian people remains much worse than that of other Americans. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is the statutory framework for the Indian health system and covers just about every aspect of health care. It provides grants and scholarships to recruit Indians into health professions serving native communities and funds to expand the health care infrastructure. It lifted the prohibition against Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for health services provided by the Indian Health Service or the Indian tribes, and established health services for Indians in urban areas. Reauthorization of this Act is a high legislative priority. Critical improvements have been provided in this bill including provisions exploring options for long-term care, governing children and senior issues and the following: new sources of funding for recruitment and retention purposes; access to health care, especially for Indian children and low-income Indians; more flexibility in facility construction programs; consolidated behavioral health programs for more comprehensive care; and a Commission to study and recommend the best means of providing Indian health care. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure passage of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 18, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Taking Lands into Trust. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251. committee on indian affairs

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S.J. Res. 15, a joint resolution to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after more than 5 months of work, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, and Salazar in introducing the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. This bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform legislation is designed to fix our Nation's broken immigration system. This landmark legislation would bring common sense to the current system and promote our national security interests. I am equally pleased by the effort of Congressmen Kolbe, Flake, and Gutierrez who are introducing the House companion bill. While in previous years we worked independently on immigration reform legislation, we are coming together today to introduce what we believe is groundbreaking, comprehensive legislation. Over a year ago, the President laid out a framework for what comprehensive immigration reform should look like. We have used the President's framework to craft this package and I applaud the President for his leadership on this issue. The simple fact is that America's immigration system is broken. Recent vigilante activities along the southwestern border have shown that the current situation is not sustainable. Americans are frustrated with our lack of border security and our inability to control illegal immigration. We have spent billions of dollars on border enforcement. We have sent more, but still not enough, Federal agents to the border equipped with sophisticated technology. We have worked to harden the border in key places. And yet, illegal immigration continues. I would like to mention some startling statistics that demonstrate the critical need for immigration reform. I think the numbers speak for themselves: Over 300 people died last year trying to cross the border; about 200 of those deaths occurred in Arizona's desert. Last year 1.1 million illegal immigrants were caught by the Border Patrol in 2004. Fifty-one percent of those were caught in Arizona. The Border Patrol is currently apprehending over 1,000 undocumented immigrants a day in Arizona. According to the FBI, an increasing number of these individuals are OTMs, Other Than Mexicans, from ``countries of interest.'' Homeland security is our Nation's number one priority, and this legislation includes numerous provisions that together will make our nation more secure. This bill includes provisions to strengthen border security, both on our side of the border and throughout this hemisphere. Through the establishment of a new electronic employment verification system, the bill will create a more secure mechanism to better enforce our nation's immigration laws within our borders. Additionally, the bill enhances the authority of the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security to conduct random audits to ensure that employers are holding up their end of the bargain. And if they aren't, they face double fines. Make no mistake, this is not an amnesty bill. We are not here to reward law-breakers, and any accusations to the contrary are patently untrue. This bill recognizes the problems inherent in the current system and provides a logical and effective means to address these problems. The reality is, there are an estimated million undocumented people living and working in this country. It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented, and if we did, it would ground our Nation's economy to a halt. These millions of people are working. Aliens will not come forward to simply ``report and deport.'' We have a national interest in identifying these individuals, incentivizing them to come forward out of the shadows, go through security background checks, pay back taxes, pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status. Anyone who thinks this goal can be achieved without providing an eventual path to a permanent legal status is not serious about solving this problem. Part of the failure of the existing system is its inability to provide sufficient legal channels to pair willing workers with willing employers. This bill establishes a new market-based temporary worker program so that when there is no U.S. worker to fill a job, employers will be able to hire willing and able foreign workers who have gone through security background checks, medical exams, and paid a fee for their visa. And, by doing away with outdated numerical caps on this program, this bill recognizes that the needs of the U.S. economy are constantly in flux, and our immigration system must match those needs. I don't believe there is another issue that is more important to our Nation than immigration reform. For far too long, our Nation's broken immigration laws have gone unreformed, leaving Americans vulnerable. We can no longer afford to delay reform. The complex and difficult problems associated with immigration reform will not be solved overnight, but they are among the most difficult challenges facing our Nation today. That is why it is so important that the President shares our commitment to comprehensive reform. Together with the President, I am committed to this process and remain very hopeful that we will succeed. I want to especially express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and his staff for their sincere commitment to this critical issue. Also, the contributions to the bill as recommended by Senator Brownback have been invaluable to this effort. I would also like to thank Senator Lugar, who allowed us to incorporate critical international border enforcement provisions from his legislation, the North American Cooperative Security Act. Through the collective efforts of a wide range of bipartisan interests in both Houses of Congress, not to mention immigration advocacy groups, representatives of our Nation's businesses, and several labor unions, this comprehensive legislation provides a meaningful direction for how our immigration system should be reformed, and our border security strengthened. I look forward to working with all interested parties in the important and necessary effort to once and for all reform our broken immigration system.