John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today is the 1st of May. It is significant in U.S. history for major technological achievements. On this day in 1935, the Boulder Dam, later renamed for President Herbert Hoover, was completed. On May 1, 1947, radar for commercial and private aircraft was first demonstrated. On May 1, 1844, Samuel Morse sent the first telegraph message. All of these achievements represented significant technological milestones that have greatly benefited millions of Americans. May 1, 2002, was supposed to be a wonderful day that represented another technological milestone for American television viewers. Today is the deadline for all commercial television stations in the United States to be broadcasting a digital signal. Theoretically, consumers should now be able to receive a digital signal from each and every commercial broadcaster in the country. Unfortunately for consumers, a vast majority of broadcasters have missed today's deadline, leaving consumers' digital TV tuners with little more than static. In fact, according to recent figures from the FCC and the National Association of Broadcasters, over 1,011, or 77 percent, of commercial broadcasters have failed to meet the May 1 deadline. Moreover, 834 commercial stations filed waiver requests with the FCC seeking an extension to complete the construction of their digital facilities. The transition to digital television has been a grave disappointment for American consumers but not surprising to this Member. It is nothing short of a spectrum heist for American taxpayers. I will read a few headlines that recently appeared in newspapers across the country: The Boston Globe, ``Missed Signals: Many TV Stations Seen Lagging on Deadline to Offer High Definition.'' San Jose Mercury News: ``Static Blurs HDTV Transition. Industries Squabbling Stalls Digital Television.'' USA Today: ``Digital TV Revolution Yields Mostly White Noise.'' And finally, the most remarkable headline from Monday's New York Times: ``Most Commercial Broadcasters Will Miss Deadline For Digital Television.'' This morning's USA Today states: Today was supposed to be a milestone in the grand conversion to digital broadcast television. Instead it serves as a marker for how poorly the transition is going . . . At the current pace, broadcasters will be able to keep all of their spectrum, digital and analogue, in perpetuity. That means a substantial chunk will remain locked up in broadcasters' hands instead of being put to more valuable uses, such as for advanced cell phone services. Not only are those needed, the spectrum also could be sold for billions, aiding a deficit-laden U.S. Treasury. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial and other news items be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Broadcasters have not only missed today's deadline but they have broken their promise to Congress and American consumers. In testimony before the Commerce Committee in 1997, the National Association of Broadcasters stated: We agreed to an aggressive rollout for this new technology . . . Broadcasters have made a compact with Congress concerning high definition television. We will meet our commitments. I did not believe that at the time, and I know it is not true now. This is a $70 billion rip-off on the part of the National Association of Broadcasters, pure and simple. Today it is clear that three-quarters of those broadcasters have not met their commitments, and their failure to do so is slowing the transition to digital television. A slow transition affects Americans not only as consumers but also as taxpayers. Broadcasters were given $70 billion in spectrum to facilitate the transition on the condition that they return it when the transition is complete. By failing to meet today's deadline, broadcasters continue to squat on the taxpayers' valuable resource. While I am generally disappointed and frustrated by the broadcasters' failure to live up to their promises, I recognize some television networks are contributing to the transition. For example, CBS has been one of the leaders in providing digital content to consumers. They broadcast a large majority of their prime time schedule in high definition--approximately 16 hours a week. In addition, ABC is currently broadcasting all of their scripted prime time programming in high definition. Providing compelling content to consumers is an important component to the DTV transition. The more stations that are DTV capable and are broadcasting in high definition, the more consumers will migrate to this new technology and purchase products that allow them to view enhanced programming. I believe broadcasters, as beneficiaries of this great American spectrum rip-off, bear heightened responsibility for facilitating the DTV transition. I recognize that if even the broadcasters were to meet their commitments, the transition would not necessarily be complete. Digital broadcast is one cylinder of the engine needed to drive the transition. Many other issues still remain unsolved, and I do not underestimate the amount of work that needs to be done. Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, has recognized this. In what I believe is a step in the right direction, Chairman Powell has advanced a proposal that incorporates provisions for all of the industries involved with the DTV transition and asks for voluntary cooperation to accelerate the transition. Chairman Powell has called for the top four networks to provide DTV programming during at least 50 percent of their prime time schedule beginning in the 2002-2003 season and has asked DTV affiliates of the top four networks in major markets to obtain and install the equipment necessary to broadcast a digital signal and inform viewers that digital content is being broadcast. The proposal also calls on cable operators with 750 megahertz systems or higher to offer to carry, at no cost, the signals of up to five broadcast or other digital programming services. Additionally, the proposal asks the direct broadcast satellite industry to carry the signals of up to five digital programming services that are providing DTV programming during at least 50 percent of their prime time schedule. Finally, the proposal calls on the equipment manufacturers to include over-the-air DTV tuners in new broadcast television receivers between 2004 and 2006. I understand that certain industry representatives, including broadcast networks and earlier today the cable industry, have expressed a general willingness to answer Chairman Powell's call. I think this is also a step in the right direction. I am hopeful these commitments will lead to results. Unfortunately, the last commitments obviously did not. Make no mistake, I continue to be a firm believer in market forces, which is why I believe this voluntary proposal is an appropriate step at this time. We must be mindful, however, that valuable public resources are at stake. Should the transition continue to be delayed, alternative measures will need to be taken in order to reclaim the spectrum for which so many other productive uses can be found and which rightfully belongs to the American taxpayers. I believe, therefore, the Congress needs to be prepared to intervene, if necessary, to protect the taxpayers of this country. If significant progress is not made in the DTV transition, then I will introduce legislation that will not be voluntary. Codifying Chairman Powell's voluntary proposal may be the mildest measure we should consider. Let me emphasize the importance of this point. Significant progress needs to be made on the DTV transition. If progress continues to stall, then perhaps a more aggressive approach such as reclaiming the spectrum from the broadcasters beginning January 1, 2007, will be required. In closing, I realize this transition has not been easy for all the industries involved. Some of the industries have made intensive efforts, devoting significant time and resources to make DTV a reality, but many difficult issues surrounding the DTV transition still remain. During a 1998 Commerce Committee hearing on DTV transition, I stated I would not suggest the Government now ought to step up and immerse itself in micromanaging every piece of this process. While I still believe the Government is not good at micromanaging, I believe the hour is nearing when the Government should step in and find solutions to the mess we helped create. More importantly, I believe Congress has a duty to protect the taxpayers of this country and reclaim spectrum so it may be put to its best use. I will finish with one final observation: For the most part, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has failed to live up to its promises to consumers. I believe its failures can teach us a valuable lesson while we watch many of the same industries involved in the passage of the act grapple with conversion to DTV. The lesson we should have learned from the failure of the 1996 Telecom Act is that the interests of major telecommunications companies and average American consumers are not the same. Where the interests of the industries and the interests of the consumers diverge, Congress must assure that the consumers come first. The failures of the Telecommunications Act show what happens when Congress first fails to see where the interests of industries are incompatible with the interests of consumers, and then fails to act once it does. I intend not to let this happen and will move forward with legislation should progress not be made in the coming months. I say again, when we gave away $70 billion to the broadcasters, I knew at the time they would never meet this time schedule. It was a dirty little secret. They have not met it. The Senator from New Jersey is on the floor. We tried to get some free television time for candidates. They certainly could not afford that. They are not acting in the public interest, and it is time they started acting in the public interest. There is no more powerful lobby in this town than the National Association of Broadcasters, and abuses have never been greater.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great American patriot, Colonel Derrell B. Jeffords, USAF. As a young man, Colonel Jeffords knew that he wanted to serve his country in the military, dreaming of becoming an Air Force pilot. He began to realize his goals in June of 1944, when he graduated from the United States Army Air Force Cadet Flying School. Over the next 22 years of dedicated service, he distinguished himself not only as a skilled pilot, but also as an outstanding leader. After tours at 12 different bases in 20 years he answered his nation's call once more. In October of 1965, Colonel Jeffords reported to Vietnam for what would turn out to be his final deployment. On Christmas Eve 1965, just as President Johnson announced a week long bombing halt in North Vietnam, Colonel Jeffords' family received the painful telegram declaring him Missing in Action. His family learned that while on an armed reconnaissance mission, just south of Ban Bac, Laos, Colonel Jeffords' C-47 ``Spooky'' had been shot down. Deryl Jeffords was only 13 years old when her father was shot down. She was forced to remember him through the letters that he wrote from Vietnam. Those letters never reflected any sign of fear, resentment or anger at being in Vietnam. To Colonel Jeffords, it was not a duty to serve in Vietnam, it was an honor. I was recently contacted by Ms. Jeffords, who told me about her father's life. Moved by the heroic story of Colonel Jeffords, I felt it necessary to rise on the floor of the United States Senate, to give her father the respect, honor, dedication and recognition that he so richly deserves from our country. Colonel Jeffords is an American hero, who fought for all citizens, so that we could keep the freedom that we enjoy today. Colonel Jeffords will always be in the heart and soul of his family that he left behind. None of us should ever forget Colonel Derrell B. Jeffords, for he represents the very heart of what our country stands for. God Bless him.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleague from South Carolina. I will speak for 5 or 10 minutes. I thank him for the courtesy. Madam President, the Senate is embarking on a historic debate, one in which we have the opportunity to expand economies, promote job creation, and reduce poverty, in the United States and around the world. As we consider this package of trade bills and debate whether to grant the President trade promotion authority, I hope we remain focused on the big picture. Both collectively and individually, these bills promote the expansion of global free trade and the prosperity that attends it. Since the end of World War II, the United States has served as a global leader and champion of free trade. Regrettably, a recent surge of protectionism, often driven by special interests that care nothing for the welfare of the average American consumer, has severely handicapped our leadership. Major U.S. trading partners doubt our dedication to free trade, and not without cause. Recent protectionist policies on lumber and, most egregiously, on steel have fueled the scorn of our global trading partners--and rightly so. Failing to pass trade promotion authority will forfeit our nation's legitimacy as a global free trade leader and confirm the views of critics around the world who don't take our devotion to free trade, and consequently our global leadership, seriously. We cannot let this happen. The authority first established by the Trade Act of 1974 and now proposed in TPA expired eight years ago. Since then, numerous trade agreements, in which the United States has not participated, have been negotiated and implemented around the world. The simple fact is that our trading partners are unwilling to negotiate agreements with an administration that lacks TPA. Today, there are 130 preferential trade agreements, and the United States is a party to three of them. Similarly, the United States is a party to only one of the 30 free trade agreements in the Western Hemisphere. Those 156 agreements to which we are not a signatory represent missed opportunities for all Americans. The American people benefit enormously from trade, even if they often don't realize it. Today, over 12 million U.S. jobs depend on exports, and those jobs pay wages that are 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average. Every day, American consumers reap the benefits of trade in the form of lower-priced goods and services. The office of the U.S. Trade Representative estimates that the combined benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and the Uruguay round agreements have saved the average American family of four between $1,300 and $2,000 a year. A University of Michigan study found that a global reduction of trade barriers could result in an additional income gain of $2,500 for the average American family of four. Too often, our Nation's approach to trade has been to open foreign markets to American goods and services while erecting domestic barriers to foreign imports. But trade does not work that way. It is, by definition, a two-way street. Continuing along this protectionist path will ultimately cause more damage to the very American industries clamoring for protection today. Without reciprocity, the farmers and corporations of this Nation will soon lose access to the valuable markets they depend on to sell their goods. Such an approach turns trade, a positive-sum game in which all parties benefit from expanded economic opportunity, into a zero-sum game strangely reminiscent of a discredited, mercantilist past. Expanding free trade is a way to improve the well-being of all Americans, particularly the working poor. The most basic economic analysis shows that tariffs represent an unfair tax on an already overtaxed public. Reducing barriers to trade is the equivalent of a tax cut for every consumer. Presidential trade negotiating authority was necessary in the past to reach the agreements from which Americans currently benefit. That same authority is needed for this administration and others to negotiate future agreements, to build on our prosperity. By enabling the negotiation of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, TPA will empower the President to eliminate trade barriers, reduce tariffs, and open foreign markets to American goods and services. American workers, farmers, businessmen, and consumers will benefit from the successful completion of the World Trade Organization negotiations in Doha, regional free trade agreements like the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and bilateral trade agreements such as those we hope to achieve soon with Singapore and Chile. On a regional level, it is particularly urgent that we support our allies in the hemisphere by deepening our trade relationship with them, in order to advance broader American interests in Latin America. Let there be no doubt: the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act is important to U.S. national security and the security of the democratically elected governments in the Andean region. In 1991, former President Bush signed into law the Andean Trade Act. In a fresh approach to the war on drugs, he argued that promoting trade between the United States and the countries of the Andean region would expand their economies, create jobs outside the drug trade, and increase stability in the Andean region. After a decade in which democracy has taken root in these nations, these goals are even more important. Although the original Andean Trade Act represented a modest effort-- granting duty-free or reduced tariff treatment to a limited number of goods from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru--it has produced many successes. Two-way trade between the United States and the Andean nations has more than doubled since 1991, and new industries have emerged as a result of the reduced-tariff benefits or the agreements. In Colombia, for example, the fresh-cut flower industry has created over 150,000 new jobs. These people are now harvesting and planting flowers rather than trafficking illegal drugs. Similarly, in Peru, the benefits of the Andean Trade Act encouraged farmers to cultivate asparagus, creating 50,000 new jobs, and making asparagus that country's largest export crop to the United States. Today, farmers in the region are choosing to plant products to be exported under the Andean Trade Act, rather than coca. Our strategic goals in the region require us to build upon these successes. The Colombia conflict lends particular urgency to the need for swift congressional action on Andean trade expansion. Not only are Colombia's people at risk from the FARC terrorists, Colombia's democracy is at risk from the corrosive effects decades of civil war have had on her institutions and her economy. The military and intelligence assistance America provides to Colombia is critical, but it is only a part of our policy response. We have an obligation to help our ally not only to defeat the terrorists, but to build the foundation for a lasting peace by supporting economic development in Colombia. Andean trade expansion provides a way to do that without costing U.S. taxpayers a dime. The government of the region, burdened by the spillover effects of the Colombian conflict, are the most eloquent advocates for the tangible benefits provided by the Andean trade agreement. The group of nations that benefit from the act are critical to the hemispheric stability, prosperity, and democracy America has worked to foster in the region. These nations stand with us in wanting to end the economic despair and dislocation the Colombian conflict has projected across their borders. It is in America's interest to counter the economic destabilization that war has brought to Colombia's neighbors with the broad-based economic growth that represents the region's best hope. The arguments that drive support for the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act demonstrate how trade and development in the Andean region increase our national security. I hope the Senate will act swiftly on the ATPA, given the expiration of existing Andean trade preferences on May 16, as we accelerate our efforts to build prosperity and consolidate democracy in the region. As we consider this entire legislative package, I would caution my colleagues against further efforts to restrict free trade. I hope we will avoid the temptation to support veiled protectionist measures in order to secure passage of this bill. We cannot, in good faith, work to promote trade liberalization with one hand while restricting it with the other. Such an approach will not further the expansion of global free trade. Indeed, it will only solidify the distrust of our allies and trading partners while doing nothing to increase the prosperity of the American people. A critical component of this trade bill is how to develop the best possible solution for providing assistance to hard-working Americans who may lose their health insurance coverage as an unintended result of this legislation. This is a real concern and one that we must take seriously. However, we can't allow this issue to be politicized and used to deter the passage of this important trade bill. Both sides of the aisle have made significant progress toward a compromise. Now we must continue compromising until we iron out a fair and sound solution for addressing the health care needs of our Nation's workers. Ensuring access to affordable and quality health care for all Americans must be a priority, and I commend each of my colleagues who are fighting for health care protections for workers possibly impacted by this bill. But this simply can't be done if partisan politics prevent us from working together to find a solution that is good for our workers and the overall quality of our health care system. I look forward to this broad trade debate. I believe it is healthy for our Nation and our democracy for our leaders to make what is a compelling intellectual case for free trade, and to demonstrate to the American people how successful trade liberalization represents money in the pockets. We now have the opportunity to reverse the recent protectionist tide. It is time that we look to the future, consider the long-term interests of our Nation, and work urgently to provide the President with the authority he needs to negotiate for free trade. Madam President, I reiterate, the situation in the four countries of Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru is such that we cannot delay, longer than May 16, passage of the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act. I cannot tell you the problems that will result in that very delicate region of our hemisphere at that time if the Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act is not renewed. Colombia is in serious trouble. Peru has only recently emerged from a very difficult period. Ecuador has been directly impacted by the conflict within Colombia. And, of course, Bolivia has had severe economic problems for a long period of time. This is a small step but a very important one. And our failure--our failure--to act on this legislation I think would send a very bitter message to our friends and allies in our own hemisphere. After passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, America's goal was to have a hemispheric free trade agreement within a short period of time. Obviously we have fallen very short of that. I look forward to a vigorous debate with my friend from South Carolina and my friend from North Dakota who just came to the Chamber. I hope this debate is based on our mutual concern for the workers of America, but that concern should also be balanced by our concern for the average working men and families in America who will find that goods and services are less expensive to them. History proves it. No, we don't like to see lumber workers or cotton farmers or wheat farmers or anybody else harmed by free trade. We can take care of that impact on our economy and still serve the greater good of our entire Nation. I have had the great privilege of visiting South Carolina on many occasions. One of the greatest products of free trade is the BMW plant, which the Senator from South Carolina was instrumental in attracting to that great State. It is always a privilege for me to go back and visit. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from South Carolina, I know there are individual and heartbreaking stories of people who have lost their jobs in the textile industry in South Carolina. The fact remains that history and the record show that every American family, whether they are unemployed or employed or rich or poor, has benefited by the importation of less expensive goods and services into the United States. We balance this with assistance, training, in every way we can, including reaching agreement on health benefits for dislocated workers. I never have sold anything to a grocery store. I bought a lot from grocery stores. I buy flowers a lot cheaper when they are grown in Colombia than when they are grown in South Carolina. It has never been my ambition for any child to grow up to work in a textile factory. I would much rather have them work in a BMW plant or high-tech factory or other kinds of employment for which we can provide the training and education. I hope the Senator understands the fact that Americans have profited by free trade enormously. Yet we can still address the specific problems that result from dislocated workers. That is what free trade is all about. That is why I believe this Nation will continue to prosper when we have free trade agreements consummated between ourselves and our neighbors. We should be concerned about the economy of countries such as Colombia because their narcotraffickers can take over that country and export their goods, which are drugs, into this one. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I look forward to a renewal of our spirited discussion which we have had for many years, always marked by respect for the views of the junior Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from South Carolina. He has the floor. May I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to respond?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, regarding this energy proposal before the Senate proceeds to a final vote today. For 6 weeks, we have debated various aspects of this energy proposal. It's been the most exhaustive debate on energy related issues since 1992 when previous energy legislation was enacted. In that 10-year time span, unfortunately, conditions have only worsened. America's dependence on foreign oil has increased from 46 percent to 57 percent. In 1992, gas prices were $1.13 per gallon. But, in recent times, consumers have had to absorb several price spikes in gasoline prices, some in excess of $2 per gallon. Special interest tax subsidies are also on the rise. In 1992, the Congress enacted $1.5 billion for energy tax credits and benefits for 5 years. This Senate bill includes more than $13 billion for 10 years, and this amount could increase since the House-passed energy bill includes more than $30 billion in energy tax subsidies. As I listened to many of my colleagues debate these various issues on the Senate floor, the consistent message I have heard from both sides of the aisle is the need for a balanced energy policy, increasing U.S. energy stability, and protecting American consumers. These are all laudable and important goals. The end result, however, is a bill that falls significantly short of these goals and represents more benefits to special interests than to the American people. One of the stated objectives of this new energy policy is to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Regrettably, we missed a critical opportunity when the Senate rejected a proposal to increase fuel efficiency standards, which would have substantially decreased our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and also reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Had we adopted an increase of fuel efficiency standards to 36 mpg average by 2015, we could have potentially saved 2.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2020. This amount is about equal to present imports from the Persian Gulf. The Senate also rejected a modest effort to mitigate the growth rate of our Nation's oil consumption, which increases each year by an estimated 2.5 percent, by requiring the Secretary of Transportation to reduce the amount of oil we use to power passenger cars and light trucks by 1 million barrels per day by the year 2015. Both these critical measures would have gone far to improve energy efficiency, the environment, and public health. By increasing CAFE standards by 46 percent and reducing our consumption of oil, we could also have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent in Arizona alone, significantly improving the air that is negatively impacting our citizens. Instead, pressure from car manufacturers and industry won the day, and we rejected these modest approaches to improving energy efficiency and public health. Another big benefactor in this bill is the ethanol industry. Not only does this bill propose a ten-year extension of tax benefits for the ethanol industry, it also requires that ethanol use in gasoline shall be increased three-fold by 2012. Proponents of the new reformulated fuel standard requirement suggest that their intention is to help farmers, small ethanol producers, and replace the controversial fuel additive, methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, which has been proven to contaminate groundwater. This new ethanol requirement is so important to its sponsors that they willingly override continuing public and scientific concerns about ethanol's impacts on the environment and public health. Unanswered questions remain about the Nation's production and transportation readiness for this expanded market. Billions will continue to be drawn from the Federal treasury to subsidize the ethanol industry. The ethanol industry has enjoyed extremely generous subsidies for close to 30 years. By any business standard, it should be more than aptly competitive. This is a free market economy, yet, here we are, essentially guaranteeing the ethanol industry a monopoly on the gasoline market for the next 10 years. Plus, this bill continues the 5.3 cents-a-gallon tax subsidy and other ethanol tax benefits, which drain $1 billion annually from the Federal treasury. By tripling the amount of ethanol use, this amount could raise to $2.5 to $3 billion a year. This is poorly conceived public policy, and blatant corporate welfare at its worst. Back in March of this year, I voted for the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. It was the economic stimulus package that provided temporary assistance for unemployed Americans and their families. At the time, I stated that we should not ignore the plight of millions of Americans who were laid off and wanted to return to work. I also said that my vote for this legislation should not be interpreted as a total endorsement of all of its provisions. Indeed, I stated my serious reservations about a particular provision in the bill that extended a tax credit to the industry in the business of converting poultry waste into electricity until the end of 2003. Well, guess what? The tax incentives in the energy bill address the very same provision again but with a twist that will cost taxpayers $2.3 billion over the next 10 years. In the past, this income tax credit has been allowed for the production of electricity from either qualified wind energy, ``closed-loop'' biomass, or poultry waste facilities. But the bill before us not only extends this tax credit until the end of 2006, it also expands the qualifying energy resources to include geothermal energy and solar energy, ``open-loop'' biomass, and swine and bovine waste nutrients. I am certainly glad that we have gone beyond helping the chicken waste industry now. Now, we have eliminated the discrimination in favor of chickens. We are awarding the productive use of the waste of pigs and cows. But why don't we totally eliminate this animal waste discrimination. Why not give a credit for the waste of dogs, cats, mice, birds? The list is infinite. Let's end discrimination now and give a tax credit for converting all kinds of animal waste. I am very confident that the American taxpayer will feel that their hard-earned money is being well spent. And if you believe that statement, I'm sure that there is some waterfront property in Gila Bend, AZ, you would be interested in buying. Again, my concern is that the special interests continue to benefit at the expense of hard-working American taxpayers. I regret that I cannot support a bill that is so detrimental to taxpayers and does little to improve national energy security.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, section 1601 of title XVI of this bill would establish a National Science and Technology Assessment Service to develop information for Congress relating to the uses and application of technology to address current national science and technology policy issues. Everyone in this body appreciates that the science and technology policy issues that we face today are diverse and complex. Clearly there is a need for some reliable means for Congress to receive timely, unbiased information on such matters. However, I am concerned that the details of the organizational structure being proposed in this section have not been fully vetted. No hearings were held on the proposal. Many of those interested are not locked into this particular design proposal, but feel that there is a valid need for such an organization. I hope that we can revise the title XVI provisions to ensure that it meets the needs of Members. Many of us recall the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment which was abolished in 1995 over concerns about its ability to provide timely information to Members of Congress. Oftentimes their reports were released after a vote on a particular issue, rendering them useless from a Congressional standpoint. There were also concerns that the office had grown to be much larger than originally anticipated. By the time the office was abolished, it had grown to have an annual budget of approximately $22 million and had over 200 employees. The cost of an average report was around $400,000. I believe that the authors of this title XVI intend that the assessment service be an unbiased, nonpartisan entity whose reports and recommendations would be widely accepted by the Congress. To create such an entity with instant credibility, requires an open process for considering different approaches to structuring it. Without this opportunity and process, the established service may not be received as a reliable non-partisan entity. Without such a reception, the service would be essentially useless. Although I have filed an amendment that would delete this title from the bill, I am hereby withdrawing that amendment. I hope to work with the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, to further review the provision while the Energy bill is in conference with the House. I urge Senator Hollings to hold hearings on this proposal to allow for an open debate on the needs and benefits of the congressional service. I further urge the chairman to engage other committees and Members in these discussions.

Mr. McCAIN. Municipal biosolids?

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator explain what amendment No. 3346 is?

Mr. McCAIN. Electricity manufactured from biosolids?

Mr. McCAIN. I don't want to hold up the Senate, but what about man's best friend, the dog? What about the pigeon, the noble pigeon?

Mr. McCAIN. Should there be some consideration of these? Shouldn't they make a deposit to reduce our energy requirements?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the manager a question? I understand we have tax credit for chicken litter, biowaste. Excuse me? Bovine, pig, dead animal, and now biosolids; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the sponsor for that consideration.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the many Senators for their involvement in these discussions on the very complex issue of climate change. I applaud their efforts to reach agreement on these titles. It is not often that several Committees come together to discuss an issue that cuts across their respective jurisdictions. I think that the agreement that has been reached thus far represents major progress on the road toward addressing the problem of climate change. I, like other Members, have concerns that need further discussion. I think that a dialogue with the House and the Administration will be invaluable as we continue our efforts to finalize a domestic approach to the problem. Therefore, I look forward to working with the various Senators as we continue these discussions on the bill during the conference with the House. In closing, I would like to note that I have concerns with the newly established Office of Climate Change Technology in Title X of the bill. I hope these concerns can be further addressed as we proceed on the bill. Additionally, I have issues with the loan guarantee provisions of Title XIII. I will speak further on these in a separate statement.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak about today's vote to end debate on the two pending amendments to authorize oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In past years, I have voted in support of exploring development options in ANWR as part of budget reconciliation measures. I believed that was the right vote. I was not an expert on the issue and I believed that further deliberation was warranted. Unfortunately, the information presented to us consistently reveals widely varying predictions of actual oil potential and economic benefits, as well as various scenarios of possible impacts on wildlife and the environment. Even government studies are not conclusive and raise more questions than they answer. The various interpretations have already been debated by each side, and I need not rehash them now. However, several factors are clear to me. Oil and gas could be recovered from ANWR many years from now, but not without considerable costs to taxpayers. Most scientific analyses conclude that both the land and wildlife would adversely be impacted by development. The two Alaska Native communities most impacted by this debate are split in their positions on this issue. Even if ANWR were authorized for development, we would still rely on imported oil supplies and require other sources of energy development and generation. I, too, am concerned about our Nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies. Unless we act in some comprehensive manner on several fronts, including conservation measures and greater use of nuclear and other forms of alternative energy generation, our current dependence on foreign oil could increase from 56 percent to 70 percent in less than 20 years. With respect to taking truly effective action to reduce our oil dependence, regrettably the Senate rejected a more effective measure to modestly increase fuel efficiency standards, a proposal that would substantially decrease our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Had we adopted an increase of fuel efficiency standards to 36 mpg average by 2013, we could have potentially saved 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2020 which is about equal to present imports from the Persian Gulf. This prudent conservation measure would also save twice as much, if not more, oil than what is in ANWR. Opening the refuge could only meet about 2 to 5 percent of the Nation's oil needs, at best. Even some oil company executives have expressed doubts about drilling in ANWR, as stated by one: ``Big oil companies go where there are substantial fields and where they can produce oil economically . . . does ANWR have that? Who knows?'' Let me also say that the answer to threats posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein is not to drill in ANWR but to end his regime sooner rather than later. Drilling in ANWR will not remove the clear and present danger posed by Hussein and will not stop in any way whatsoever his weapons of mass destruction program or for that matter his ``inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing,'' as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld so aptly described his lawless and murderous behavior. I also wish to comment briefly about the second-degree amendment offered to the underlying ANWR amendment to divert a majority of revenues derived from oil and gas development to retirement and other benefits for the steel industry. I am not against our steel workers. They helped build our Nation and are among the hardest working people in America. But to underwrite their retirement in a transparent effort to attract more votes is very bad policy. What do we say to all the other workers who are also suffering during economic hard times? Are we going to say, ``sorry, but giving royalties to folks in your industry won't get us the votes we need to pass our bill''? Miners, teachers, construction laborers, and many other hard-working Americans have seen their jobs, benefits, and pensions endangered by the recent hard economic times. Yet, they would not benefit from this proposal. Nor would our veterans, who undoubtably could use more help paying for their medical bills. These last-minute tactics are not a credit to this deliberative body and only serve to increase the public's skepticism of government. America will need oil for the foreseeable future. What gives this generation the right to deplete this vital resource when we have the opportunity to preserve it for the benefit of future generations? At the end of our day, we still have prudent alternatives to ANWR to meet our energy demands and we should aggressively pursue them. A more acute energy need than our own in the future may require development, where assurances of improved technology may better protect the environment. With other viable energy options available to us today, to approve ANWR drilling would be a dereliction of our duty to posterity. Teddy Roosevelt, the champion of conservation, once said: ``Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.'' I have thought long and hard about this debate and the vote that I will cast. I still hope we can achieve a more balanced national energy strategy, but I am not convinced that a key component of that policy should be to drill in ANWR. I will vote against the motions to invoke cloture on these amendments.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I am introducing a discussion bill intended to provide the basis for further reform of the administration and management of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual Indians. I'm pleased to be joined by my two distinguished colleagues from South Dakota, Senators Daschle and Johnson. As a result of over 300 treaties and an extensive course of dealings between the United States and Indian tribes, the Federal Government holds the legal title to lands held in trust for Indian tribes and individual tribal members. The revenues derived from the use of these lands and the resources found on trust lands, along with the proceeds from claims that have arisen from the wrongful taking or the loss of use of the assets, comprise the funds that are held in trust by the United States for the benefit of individual Indians and Indian tribes. Today, the United States maintains approximately 1,400 trust fund accounts for 315 Indian tribes with funds in excess of $2.6 billion, and over 260,000 individual Indian money, IIM, accounts with about $400 million in funds. Approximately 45 million acres of land are held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Indian tribes and about 11 million acres are held in trust for individual Indians. These lands contain vast amounts of minerals, coal, oil and gas, water, forest resources, and agricultural resources. These funds, lands, and resources comprise the trust estate held by the United States for the benefit of tribes and individual Indians. The Interior Department distributes leasing and sales revenues of $300 million per year to more than 225,000 individual Indian money accounts and about $800 million a year to the 1,400 tribal accounts. It manages income from more than 100,000 active leases for tribes and individual Indians. Indian tribes depend on the revenues from these trust assets to provide basic governmental services. IIM account holders are often living at, or near, the poverty level, and they rely on these revenues for basic essentials such as housing, food, and transportation. The manner in which trust assets and trust funds are managed by the Department has very real impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Indian people every day. All too often, those impacts are not positive. The administration and management of individual Indian trust assets and funds are extremely difficult due to the problem of fractionated heirship of lands that are a continuing legacy of the misguided and discredited allotment policies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Today, the Department and individual Indians are left with the nightmare of 1.4 million fractional interests of two percent or less involving 58,000 tracts of individually owned trust and restricted lands, each of which requires administration and often provides nothing but frustration in return for all involved. For some of these accounts, it may cost more to print and mail statements annually than the assets themselves are worth. A lasting solution needs to be found that reconsolidates these assets under Indian ownership. Many of my colleagues are familiar with the never-ending stream of GAO reports, news accounts, and hearings detailing the deplorable history of the Federal effort to manage these trust funds. Far less is known about the condition of trust assets and the history of their management. However, it doesn't take very long to recognize that the problem of mismanagement extends far beyond trust funds to the lands and resources that generate most of the funds. The Interior Department cannot provide accurate information on the number of leases on Indian lands for any purpose or the amount of revenues that should be attributed to any parcel of trust land despite repeated attempts to develop the necessary database and record keeping systems. In addition, the records for some lands and trust accounts have been lost or destroyed for entire time periods. In 1994, the Congress enacted the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act. This law was intended to bring about a series of major reforms in the management of Indian trust funds and assets under the auspices of a Special Trustee in the Interior Department. Some positive changes have occurred. Most trust account holders now receive regular statements on their accounts. Most of the revenues derived from Indian trust assets are now posted to the correct account in a reasonable period of time. However, the major structural reforms that were called for in the 1994 Act have not been achieved. It is still not possible to tell with complete certainty what tribal lands and resources are leased and what revenues are generated from all tribal lands and resources. The original intent of the 1994 Act was for the Special Trustee to go out of business after completing a plan for the restructuring of the day- to-day management of tribal and individual trust funds and assets. The Special Trustee did develop a plan that called for the creation of a government sponsored enterprise to take control of the entire Indian trust estate and manage it. The tribes and individual beneficiaries of the trust were nearly unanimous in their condemnation and rejection of this plan. The 1994 Act also established a procedure through which tribes can withdraw their trust funds from federal trust and manage them directly. Only a few tribes have taken this course. The Interior Department has not encouraged tribes to withdraw their funds and the tribes have been reluctant to do so for the simple reason that the federal trust is terminated by the act of withdrawing the funds. Anyone who is familiar with the devastation brought about by the various efforts over the years to terminate the unique relationship between the tribes and the Federal Government will not be surprised by the lack of success in the implementation of this part of the 1994 Act. The 1994 Act also called for the completion of audits of all individual and tribal trust fund accounts. After years of effort and the expenditure of millions of dollars, in 1997, the Interior Department finally provided the tribal account holders with a ``reconciliation'' of their accounts. These reconciliation reports only covered a small fraction of the years the accounts have been maintained and the reports were not audits as was required by the 1994 Act. Some tribes accepted the results of the reconciliation of their accounts. Most did not. None of the IIM accounts were reconciled and have not been to this day, despite the requirements of the 1994 Act. There are no plans to comply with the mandate of the 1994 Act for an actual accounting for any of the trust fund accounts. Conducting such an accounting would be difficult due to the lack of records. But it can be accomplished and every reasonable effort should be made to make sure this important work gets done soon. Last fall, Secretary Norton unveiled a proposal to take all of the trust fund and asset management functions out of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in order to vest them in a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM. This proposal is estimated to have a price tag of about $300 million in its first year or two. Secretary Norton's proposal was intended to respond to the short- comings of the 1994 Act and the orders of Judge Lamberth in the Cobell v. Norton litigation that has been in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia since 1997. This litigation involves the individual trust accounts and seeks an accounting of the funds managed by the Departments of the Interior and Treasury since 1887. Past failures to reconcile accounts led to contempt orders against former Secretaries Babbitt and Rubin. Judge Lamberth is currently considering contempt orders against Secretary Norton and Assistant Secretary McCaleb for actions they have taken or have failed to take with regard to these trust funds and for misleading the court about what is actually being done. Indian leaders across the country have condemned Secretary Norton's proposal to establish BITAM and have since offered a variety of alternative proposals. As I understand it, while the Secretary is working with tribal leaders to evaluate different options proposed by the tribes, the BITAM proposal remains the Department's preferred option. Representatives of the Tribes have been working on a range of possible reforms through a special Task Force established by Secretary Norton at their request. We have been in contact with members of the Task Force and am somewhat heartened by the fact that they believe they are making real progress toward meaningful reforms. The bill we are introducing is not intended to undermine that process, but will hopefully assist it. In any event, we must give careful consideration to the recommendations the Task force ultimately develops and try to act on them at the appropriate time. I believe Senators Daschle and Johnson would join me in urging the Department to continue to work with the Task Force as it completes its work in the months ahead. Even as we monitor these developments, I, and many others in Congress, continue to be concerned about the future management of trust funds and assets. We believe that further reform is necessary and that it must comport with the Interior Department's trust responsibility at the same time that it advances the self-determination policies that have been so successful in the past 30 years. The status quo is simply not acceptable. Just to reinforce our intent, the bill we are introducing today is not intended to be the ultimate solution to the problems that have been revealed in the management of the trust funds and trust assets. However, we believe it critical to the on-going reform process to introduce a bill that focuses on two elements that are important to achieving a lasting reform in the management of these funds and assets. First, the bill will establish a direct line-of-authority over the management of the trust funds and trust assets at the highest levels within the Department. Judge Lamberth, and other oversight agencies such as the General Accounting Office, have lamented the lack of accountability in the Interior Department and strongly recommended the designation of one official who will ultimately be responsible for the management of the trust funds and assets. This bill addresses this issue by establishing the Office of Trust Management and Reform in the Department of the Interior. This office will be under the authority of a Deputy Secretary who will report directly to the Secretary and who will oversee the work of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the special Trustee, the Director of the Minerals Management Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management with regard to trust funds and trust assets. I am certain that many of my colleagues who are concerned about this issue will join me in ensuring that candidates nominated by the President for the Deputy Secretary position are not only qualified in financial management, natural resource management, and federal Indian policy, but also are widely supported by the tribal community. The new Deputy Secretary will be the person ultimately responsible for the overall management of these funds and assets. The Deputy Secretary will have the authority to require the Special Trustee and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, along with the Directors of the Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management Service, to take the steps necessary to put into place the changes needed to ensure the proper administration and management of the trust funds and assets. The Deputy Secretary will be appointed by the President, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of six years and may only be removed for cause. This should give the Deputy Secretary the independence necessary to bring about meaningful reform, while still ensuring accountability. The current Tribal task force working with the Secretary is considering a structure for the management of Indian affairs that would elevate all of the current responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the Special Trustee, and the Deputy Commissioner, to the Deputy Secretary level in the Department. We look forward to learning more about the scope of the Task Force proposal and its costs or cost savings. As necessary, this bill can be modified to accommodate such a proposal if the Task Force concludes that doing so would be appropriate. This Task Force has served an important role to the tribes in working with the Department on these matters and many would like to see its function continue as a collaborative component to the Department's management. In order to ensure a continuing role for the tribes in the day-to-day activities of the Department with respect to the management of the trust funds and the trust assets, this bill amends the 1994 Act to provide that the advisory board that was established to assist the Special Trustee will be reconstituted and continue as an advisory board for the Deputy Secretary. The composition of the advisory board is broad enough to enable the Deputy Secretary to include members with expertise in the areas of trust fund management, investment, and related responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary. The other major feature of the bill is the focus on the successful policy of self-determination. Any fair review of Federal Indian policy over the course of the last century will point to the policies of termination and assimilation through allotment as abject failures. Many of the most intractable problems the tribes and federal policy makers wrestle with today stem from the wreckage caused by these misguided policies of the past. On the other hand, the policy of self-determination, which was first proposed by President Nixon in 1971, has shown itself to be the single most successful Federal Indian policy in the history of our Nation. The reasons for this success are many, but the core reason is one we can all recognize and relate to: self-determination involves Indian people directly in identifying and defining the problems facing the tribes, and more importantly, it empowers them to implement the solutions they know will work best. Putting it in slightly different terms, the self- determination policy recognizes the fact that the government closest to the people is the best government to recognize and resolve local problems. Indian policy made by the Federal Government for the Federal Government has never worked and never will work. Indian policy made by the tribal governments with appropriate Federal assistance has shown that it does work. Portions of the 1994 Act and Secretary Norton's BITAM proposal have some things in common. In varying degrees, both are attempts by the Federal Government to make Indian policy for the federal government. Neither provides a proper role for tribal governments. This bill provides a framework by which tribes can become more involved in the day-to-day management of their trust assets and trust funds through the Indian Self-Determination Act. It does not dismantle the BIA. It does provide a foundation for the tribes, the Department, and the Congress to develop and implement meaningful reform over the next several years. Every major provision of this bill is based on solutions that have been proposed by the tribes. The bill builds on the concept of beneficiary co-management of trust funds and assets. This is not a new idea. It was advanced by the tribes in the 1980's and 1990's. It is embodied in the Indian Forest Resources Management Act that Congress enacted in 1990 and the Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act enacted in 1994. It is implicit in the Indian Self-Determination Act and it is a proven formula for progress. This bill does not deal with the issues of the past. It does not address concerns about claims for past mismanagement. It does not deal with the need for an accounting of tribal and individual trust funds. It does not deal with the condition of the trust lands and assets. These are all very serious matters. My purpose is not to avoid these issues or indicate any disregard for them. Rather, we are simply trying to find a way to move forward on a more constructive basis. Representatives of the tribes have been working on a way to move forward on these issues a more constructive basis. We must give careful consideration to the recommendations they develop and try to act on them at the appropriate time. Both the House and the Senate recently passed S. 1857 to deal with the statute of limitations on past claims for mismanagement of the tribal trust funds. Judge Lamberth is considering remedies for mismanagement of the individual Indian trust funds. Secretary Norton has established the Office of Historical Trust Accounting to try to produce an accounting for the individual funds. We need to monitor all of these efforts and be prepared to enact additional legislation if necessary and if sought by the tribes. We are hopeful that we can build on the modest successes realized under the 1994 Act by providing greater accountability in the Department of the Interior and recognizing the fact that the tribes must be involved as active participants in the management and administration of the trust funds and assets without the threat of termination of the trust responsibility. It took over 100 years to create the problems we now confront with the Indian trust funds and assets. The Indian people did not create these problems. The Federal Government did. It is going to take many more years to resolve the problems. The 1994 Act was a step in the right direction. We believe this bill can lead to further progress through greater accountability and direct involvement of those who have the most at stake, the tribes and Indian people. Once again, Senators Daschle, Johnson and I propose this legislation as a vehicle for discussion for all those concerned with ending decades of mismanagement of Indian trust funds and trust assets. We look forward to receiving comments on this legislation and call on our friend, the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, to use this bill as the basis for hearings on these matters when the committee is prepared to do so. I ask that the bill and a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I am introducing a discussion bill intended to provide the basis for further reform of the administration and management of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual Indians. I'm pleased to be joined by my two distinguished colleagues from South Dakota, Senators Daschle and Johnson. As a result of over 300 treaties and an extensive course of dealings between the United States and Indian tribes, the Federal Government holds the legal title to lands held in trust for Indian tribes and individual tribal members. The revenues derived from the use of these lands and the resources found on trust lands, along with the proceeds from claims that have arisen from the wrongful taking or the loss of use of the assets, comprise the funds that are held in trust by the United States for the benefit of individual Indians and Indian tribes. Today, the United States maintains approximately 1,400 trust fund accounts for 315 Indian tribes with funds in excess of $2.6 billion, and over 260,000 individual Indian money, IIM, accounts with about $400 million in funds. Approximately 45 million acres of land are held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Indian tribes and about 11 million acres are held in trust for individual Indians. These lands contain vast amounts of minerals, coal, oil and gas, water, forest resources, and agricultural resources. These funds, lands, and resources comprise the trust estate held by the United States for the benefit of tribes and individual Indians. The Interior Department distributes leasing and sales revenues of $300 million per year to more than 225,000 individual Indian money accounts and about $800 million a year to the 1,400 tribal accounts. It manages income from more than 100,000 active leases for tribes and individual Indians. Indian tribes depend on the revenues from these trust assets to provide basic governmental services. IIM account holders are often living at, or near, the poverty level, and they rely on these revenues for basic essentials such as housing, food, and transportation. The manner in which trust assets and trust funds are managed by the Department has very real impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Indian people every day. All too often, those impacts are not positive. The administration and management of individual Indian trust assets and funds are extremely difficult due to the problem of fractionated heirship of lands that are a continuing legacy of the misguided and discredited allotment policies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Today, the Department and individual Indians are left with the nightmare of 1.4 million fractional interests of two percent or less involving 58,000 tracts of individually owned trust and restricted lands, each of which requires administration and often provides nothing but frustration in return for all involved. For some of these accounts, it may cost more to print and mail statements annually than the assets themselves are worth. A lasting solution needs to be found that reconsolidates these assets under Indian ownership. Many of my colleagues are familiar with the never-ending stream of GAO reports, news accounts, and hearings detailing the deplorable history of the Federal effort to manage these trust funds. Far less is known about the condition of trust assets and the history of their management. However, it doesn't take very long to recognize that the problem of mismanagement extends far beyond trust funds to the lands and resources that generate most of the funds. The Interior Department cannot provide accurate information on the number of leases on Indian lands for any purpose or the amount of revenues that should be attributed to any parcel of trust land despite repeated attempts to develop the necessary database and record keeping systems. In addition, the records for some lands and trust accounts have been lost or destroyed for entire time periods. In 1994, the Congress enacted the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act. This law was intended to bring about a series of major reforms in the management of Indian trust funds and assets under the auspices of a Special Trustee in the Interior Department. Some positive changes have occurred. Most trust account holders now receive regular statements on their accounts. Most of the revenues derived from Indian trust assets are now posted to the correct account in a reasonable period of time. However, the major structural reforms that were called for in the 1994 Act have not been achieved. It is still not possible to tell with complete certainty what tribal lands and resources are leased and what revenues are generated from all tribal lands and resources. The original intent of the 1994 Act was for the Special Trustee to go out of business after completing a plan for the restructuring of the day- to-day management of tribal and individual trust funds and assets. The Special Trustee did develop a plan that called for the creation of a government sponsored enterprise to take control of the entire Indian trust estate and manage it. The tribes and individual beneficiaries of the trust were nearly unanimous in their condemnation and rejection of this plan. The 1994 Act also established a procedure through which tribes can withdraw their trust funds from federal trust and manage them directly. Only a few tribes have taken this course. The Interior Department has not encouraged tribes to withdraw their funds and the tribes have been reluctant to do so for the simple reason that the federal trust is terminated by the act of withdrawing the funds. Anyone who is familiar with the devastation brought about by the various efforts over the years to terminate the unique relationship between the tribes and the Federal Government will not be surprised by the lack of success in the implementation of this part of the 1994 Act. The 1994 Act also called for the completion of audits of all individual and tribal trust fund accounts. After years of effort and the expenditure of millions of dollars, in 1997, the Interior Department finally provided the tribal account holders with a ``reconciliation'' of their accounts. These reconciliation reports only covered a small fraction of the years the accounts have been maintained and the reports were not audits as was required by the 1994 Act. Some tribes accepted the results of the reconciliation of their accounts. Most did not. None of the IIM accounts were reconciled and have not been to this day, despite the requirements of the 1994 Act. There are no plans to comply with the mandate of the 1994 Act for an actual accounting for any of the trust fund accounts. Conducting such an accounting would be difficult due to the lack of records. But it can be accomplished and every reasonable effort should be made to make sure this important work gets done soon. Last fall, Secretary Norton unveiled a proposal to take all of the trust fund and asset management functions out of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in order to vest them in a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM. This proposal is estimated to have a price tag of about $300 million in its first year or two. Secretary Norton's proposal was intended to respond to the short- comings of the 1994 Act and the orders of Judge Lamberth in the Cobell v. Norton litigation that has been in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia since 1997. This litigation involves the individual trust accounts and seeks an accounting of the funds managed by the Departments of the Interior and Treasury since 1887. Past failures to reconcile accounts led to contempt orders against former Secretaries Babbitt and Rubin. Judge Lamberth is currently considering contempt orders against Secretary Norton and Assistant Secretary McCaleb for actions they have taken or have failed to take with regard to these trust funds and for misleading the court about what is actually being done. Indian leaders across the country have condemned Secretary Norton's proposal to establish BITAM and have since offered a variety of alternative proposals. As I understand it, while the Secretary is working with tribal leaders to evaluate different options proposed by the tribes, the BITAM proposal remains the Department's preferred option. Representatives of the Tribes have been working on a range of possible reforms through a special Task Force established by Secretary Norton at their request. We have been in contact with members of the Task Force and am somewhat heartened by the fact that they believe they are making real progress toward meaningful reforms. The bill we are introducing is not intended to undermine that process, but will hopefully assist it. In any event, we must give careful consideration to the recommendations the Task force ultimately develops and try to act on them at the appropriate time. I believe Senators Daschle and Johnson would join me in urging the Department to continue to work with the Task Force as it completes its work in the months ahead. Even as we monitor these developments, I, and many others in Congress, continue to be concerned about the future management of trust funds and assets. We believe that further reform is necessary and that it must comport with the Interior Department's trust responsibility at the same time that it advances the self-determination policies that have been so successful in the past 30 years. The status quo is simply not acceptable. Just to reinforce our intent, the bill we are introducing today is not intended to be the ultimate solution to the problems that have been revealed in the management of the trust funds and trust assets. However, we believe it critical to the on-going reform process to introduce a bill that focuses on two elements that are important to achieving a lasting reform in the management of these funds and assets. First, the bill will establish a direct line-of-authority over the management of the trust funds and trust assets at the highest levels within the Department. Judge Lamberth, and other oversight agencies such as the General Accounting Office, have lamented the lack of accountability in the Interior Department and strongly recommended the designation of one official who will ultimately be responsible for the management of the trust funds and assets. This bill addresses this issue by establishing the Office of Trust Management and Reform in the Department of the Interior. This office will be under the authority of a Deputy Secretary who will report directly to the Secretary and who will oversee the work of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the special Trustee, the Director of the Minerals Management Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management with regard to trust funds and trust assets. I am certain that many of my colleagues who are concerned about this issue will join me in ensuring that candidates nominated by the President for the Deputy Secretary position are not only qualified in financial management, natural resource management, and federal Indian policy, but also are widely supported by the tribal community. The new Deputy Secretary will be the person ultimately responsible for the overall management of these funds and assets. The Deputy Secretary will have the authority to require the Special Trustee and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, along with the Directors of the Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management Service, to take the steps necessary to put into place the changes needed to ensure the proper administration and management of the trust funds and assets. The Deputy Secretary will be appointed by the President, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of six years and may only be removed for cause. This should give the Deputy Secretary the independence necessary to bring about meaningful reform, while still ensuring accountability. The current Tribal task force working with the Secretary is considering a structure for the management of Indian affairs that would elevate all of the current responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the Special Trustee, and the Deputy Commissioner, to the Deputy Secretary level in the Department. We look forward to learning more about the scope of the Task Force proposal and its costs or cost savings. As necessary, this bill can be modified to accommodate such a proposal if the Task Force concludes that doing so would be appropriate. This Task Force has served an important role to the tribes in working with the Department on these matters and many would like to see its function continue as a collaborative component to the Department's management. In order to ensure a continuing role for the tribes in the day-to-day activities of the Department with respect to the management of the trust funds and the trust assets, this bill amends the 1994 Act to provide that the advisory board that was established to assist the Special Trustee will be reconstituted and continue as an advisory board for the Deputy Secretary. The composition of the advisory board is broad enough to enable the Deputy Secretary to include members with expertise in the areas of trust fund management, investment, and related responsibilities of the Deputy Secretary. The other major feature of the bill is the focus on the successful policy of self-determination. Any fair review of Federal Indian policy over the course of the last century will point to the policies of termination and assimilation through allotment as abject failures. Many of the most intractable problems the tribes and federal policy makers wrestle with today stem from the wreckage caused by these misguided policies of the past. On the other hand, the policy of self-determination, which was first proposed by President Nixon in 1971, has shown itself to be the single most successful Federal Indian policy in the history of our Nation. The reasons for this success are many, but the core reason is one we can all recognize and relate to: self-determination involves Indian people directly in identifying and defining the problems facing the tribes, and more importantly, it empowers them to implement the solutions they know will work best. Putting it in slightly different terms, the self- determination policy recognizes the fact that the government closest to the people is the best government to recognize and resolve local problems. Indian policy made by the Federal Government for the Federal Government has never worked and never will work. Indian policy made by the tribal governments with appropriate Federal assistance has shown that it does work. Portions of the 1994 Act and Secretary Norton's BITAM proposal have some things in common. In varying degrees, both are attempts by the Federal Government to make Indian policy for the federal government. Neither provides a proper role for tribal governments. This bill provides a framework by which tribes can become more involved in the day-to-day management of their trust assets and trust funds through the Indian Self-Determination Act. It does not dismantle the BIA. It does provide a foundation for the tribes, the Department, and the Congress to develop and implement meaningful reform over the next several years. Every major provision of this bill is based on solutions that have been proposed by the tribes. The bill builds on the concept of beneficiary co-management of trust funds and assets. This is not a new idea. It was advanced by the tribes in the 1980's and 1990's. It is embodied in the Indian Forest Resources Management Act that Congress enacted in 1990 and the Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act enacted in 1994. It is implicit in the Indian Self-Determination Act and it is a proven formula for progress. This bill does not deal with the issues of the past. It does not address concerns about claims for past mismanagement. It does not deal with the need for an accounting of tribal and individual trust funds. It does not deal with the condition of the trust lands and assets. These are all very serious matters. My purpose is not to avoid these issues or indicate any disregard for them. Rather, we are simply trying to find a way to move forward on a more constructive basis. Representatives of the tribes have been working on a way to move forward on these issues a more constructive basis. We must give careful consideration to the recommendations they develop and try to act on them at the appropriate time. Both the House and the Senate recently passed S. 1857 to deal with the statute of limitations on past claims for mismanagement of the tribal trust funds. Judge Lamberth is considering remedies for mismanagement of the individual Indian trust funds. Secretary Norton has established the Office of Historical Trust Accounting to try to produce an accounting for the individual funds. We need to monitor all of these efforts and be prepared to enact additional legislation if necessary and if sought by the tribes. We are hopeful that we can build on the modest successes realized under the 1994 Act by providing greater accountability in the Department of the Interior and recognizing the fact that the tribes must be involved as active participants in the management and administration of the trust funds and assets without the threat of termination of the trust responsibility. It took over 100 years to create the problems we now confront with the Indian trust funds and assets. The Indian people did not create these problems. The Federal Government did. It is going to take many more years to resolve the problems. The 1994 Act was a step in the right direction. We believe this bill can lead to further progress through greater accountability and direct involvement of those who have the most at stake, the tribes and Indian people. Once again, Senators Daschle, Johnson and I propose this legislation as a vehicle for discussion for all those concerned with ending decades of mismanagement of Indian trust funds and trust assets. We look forward to receiving comments on this legislation and call on our friend, the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, to use this bill as the basis for hearings on these matters when the committee is prepared to do so. I ask that the bill and a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am re-introducing legislation to establish a process to evaluate Federal subsidies and tax advantages received by corporations to ensure they are in the national interest, not the special interest. This bill, ``The Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act,'' is identical to a bill I introduced in previous years. Because we face diminishing resources, we must prioritize our level of Federal spending. Therefore, corporate welfare simply must be eliminated. There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the Federal budget today, requiring the Federal Government to spend approximately $65 billion a year. Terminating even some of these programs could save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars each year, money that could be used to cut taxes for lower-income Americans, bolster Social Security, pay down the national debt, and strengthen our military forces. In years past, Congress has insisted that it would eliminate the existence of this corporate welfare, but virtually no such program has been eliminated. Consequently, taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted as I speak. The Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act aims to remove the special treatment given to politically powerful industries and restore all taxpayers to a level playing field. It defines inequitable subsidies as those provided to corporations without a reasonable expectation that they will return a commensurate benefit to the public. The Act excludes any subsidies that are primarily for research and development, education, public health, public safety, or the environment. Also excluded are subsidies or tax advantages necessary to comply with international trade or treaty obligations. The Act would create a nine-member commission nominated by the President and the Congressional leadership. Federal agencies would be required to submit to the Commission, at the time of the Administration's next budget, a list of subsidies and tax advantages that each agency believes are inequitable. The Commission will provide recommendations to either terminate or reduce the corporate subsidies. The President has the authority under the Act to either terminate consideration of the Commission's recommendations, or submit the Commission's recommendations to the Congress as a legislative initiative. The Congress would then have four months to review the Commission's recommendations that have been endorsed by the President. At that time, the actions of all involved committees in each respective legislative body would be sent to the floor for debate, under expedited procedures. Many Federal subsidies and special-interest tax breaks for corporations are unnecessary, and do not provide a fair return to the taxpayers who bear the heavy burden of their cost. If a corporation is receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies or tax breaks that are unsupported by a compelling benefit to the public, the subsidy should be ended. Does it make sense for the Agriculture Department to spend $80 million a year on a program, the Market Access Program, that subsidizes the overseas advertising campaigns of cash-strapped corporations such as Pillsbury, Dole, and Jim Beam? Why should the Commerce Department spend $211 million a year on the Advanced Technology Program to give research grants to consortiums of some of the largest and richest high-tech companies in this Nation? Where is the accountability to taxpayers here? They have been shortchanged at the expense of the special interests. This undermines our Nation's fiscal house, and impairs Congress' ability to respond to truly urgent needs such as health care, education, debt reduction, and national security. Unfortunately, the pervasive system of pork-barreling and special interest legislating is speeding along unabated in Washington. Instead of pursuing our Nation's priorities, both parties continue to spend without accountability. During my service in the Senate, I have worked to eliminate wasteful earmarks in appropriations bills. And yet this year alone, about $15 billion in pork barrel spending was approved by the Senate without going through any merit-based review process. I would rather eliminate corporate subsidies and inequitable tax subsidies without resorting to a commission. But we know that the influence of the special interests will prevent that effort from succeeding unless forceful action is taken. We need a credible process to identify corporate pork and eliminate it. This legislation is the first important step in alleviating the public burden of unnecessary corporate subsidies and tax breaks.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am re-introducing legislation to establish a process to evaluate Federal subsidies and tax advantages received by corporations to ensure they are in the national interest, not the special interest. This bill, ``The Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act,'' is identical to a bill I introduced in previous years. Because we face diminishing resources, we must prioritize our level of Federal spending. Therefore, corporate welfare simply must be eliminated. There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the Federal budget today, requiring the Federal Government to spend approximately $65 billion a year. Terminating even some of these programs could save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars each year, money that could be used to cut taxes for lower-income Americans, bolster Social Security, pay down the national debt, and strengthen our military forces. In years past, Congress has insisted that it would eliminate the existence of this corporate welfare, but virtually no such program has been eliminated. Consequently, taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted as I speak. The Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act aims to remove the special treatment given to politically powerful industries and restore all taxpayers to a level playing field. It defines inequitable subsidies as those provided to corporations without a reasonable expectation that they will return a commensurate benefit to the public. The Act excludes any subsidies that are primarily for research and development, education, public health, public safety, or the environment. Also excluded are subsidies or tax advantages necessary to comply with international trade or treaty obligations. The Act would create a nine-member commission nominated by the President and the Congressional leadership. Federal agencies would be required to submit to the Commission, at the time of the Administration's next budget, a list of subsidies and tax advantages that each agency believes are inequitable. The Commission will provide recommendations to either terminate or reduce the corporate subsidies. The President has the authority under the Act to either terminate consideration of the Commission's recommendations, or submit the Commission's recommendations to the Congress as a legislative initiative. The Congress would then have four months to review the Commission's recommendations that have been endorsed by the President. At that time, the actions of all involved committees in each respective legislative body would be sent to the floor for debate, under expedited procedures. Many Federal subsidies and special-interest tax breaks for corporations are unnecessary, and do not provide a fair return to the taxpayers who bear the heavy burden of their cost. If a corporation is receiving taxpayer-funded subsidies or tax breaks that are unsupported by a compelling benefit to the public, the subsidy should be ended. Does it make sense for the Agriculture Department to spend $80 million a year on a program, the Market Access Program, that subsidizes the overseas advertising campaigns of cash-strapped corporations such as Pillsbury, Dole, and Jim Beam? Why should the Commerce Department spend $211 million a year on the Advanced Technology Program to give research grants to consortiums of some of the largest and richest high-tech companies in this Nation? Where is the accountability to taxpayers here? They have been shortchanged at the expense of the special interests. This undermines our Nation's fiscal house, and impairs Congress' ability to respond to truly urgent needs such as health care, education, debt reduction, and national security. Unfortunately, the pervasive system of pork-barreling and special interest legislating is speeding along unabated in Washington. Instead of pursuing our Nation's priorities, both parties continue to spend without accountability. During my service in the Senate, I have worked to eliminate wasteful earmarks in appropriations bills. And yet this year alone, about $15 billion in pork barrel spending was approved by the Senate without going through any merit-based review process. I would rather eliminate corporate subsidies and inequitable tax subsidies without resorting to a commission. But we know that the influence of the special interests will prevent that effort from succeeding unless forceful action is taken. We need a credible process to identify corporate pork and eliminate it. This legislation is the first important step in alleviating the public burden of unnecessary corporate subsidies and tax breaks.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this afternoon I would like to commend my colleagues for passing S. 565, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001. I believe that this historic piece of legislation will resolve many of the problems that the country experienced in the Year 2000 election. This bill includes a number of important elements that are designed to improve and safeguard the voting process across the country. The bill establishes uniform and nondiscriminatory Federal standards, including voter notification procedures and a uniform error rate for voting systems, that will reassure voters that their votes will be correctly registered. The bill also includes mandatory procedures for provisional voting that will ensure that all legitimate voters have the right to vote. Additionally, the bill establishes an interactive, computerized, statewide voter registration system that will prevent future incidents of election fraud. The bill also includes Federal grant programs that will help the States pay for these new mandatory requirements, and provide incentives for States to replace voting machines, educate voters, and train poll workers. The bill also establishes an Election Administration Commission to improve the administration of elections across the country by using grant programs, studies, and recommendations. Most importantly, this bill will play a role in improving the situation for disabled voters. The obstacles facing millions of disabled voters have concerned me long before the 2000 elections. I find it particularly distressing that many of our nation's disabled veterans, who sacrificed so much for our country, are confronted with too many obstacles, including inaccessible polling places and machines that cannot be used by blind and visually impaired voters. According to a 2001 GAO report, requested by Senator Harkin and me, 84 percent of all polling places in the U.S. are not accessible to disabled voters. Additionally, no polling place visited by the GAO had a ballot or voting system available for blind or visually-impaired voters to mark a ballot without requiring assistance from a poll worker or companion. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Senate for supporting my amendment to ensure that the Federal Access Board will be consulted on the new voting systems standards. The Access Board has a good deal of insight and experience in solving the accessibility issues facing voters with disabilities. I am also grateful to my colleagues for accepting Senator Harkin's amendment, which I cosponsored, to make it the Sense of the Senate that ``curbside voting'' should be allowed by states only as a last resort. For many disabled voters, ``curbside voting'' strips away their sacred right to cast a private ballot. It is my hope that these amendments, combined with the $100 million grant program to improve the accessibility of polling places and the new voting systems standards, will ensure that the disabled community and our Nation's veterans will become more involved in our Nation's election process. One major issue for the Senate was how to strike a balance between preventing voter fraud and ensuring greater participation by legitimate voters. The compromise substitute amendment included provisions that would both include mandatory Federal standards to make the election process easier for legitimate voters and prevent voter fraud. I cosponsored this amendment, because it struck the necessary bipartisan compromise that was required to ensure the passage of election reform legislation. I voted against the Schumer-Wyden amendment and against two cloture motions regarding this amendment, because I believed that it would destroy this bipartisan compromise. The issue of election reform is so important that it requires broad bipartisan support, as was achieved in the House of Representatives with the Ney-Hoyer bill. While I understand the intentions of the proponents of the Schumer-Wyden amendment, I was concerned that this amendment would strip out the anti-fraud provisions of the compromise, and endanger passage of this bill. My hope was that this impasse would force the parties to work together to achieve meaningful election reform legislation. I am glad that Senators Wyden and Bond were able to work together to resolve this obstacle, and that we are now voting on final passage of this bill. Again, I would like to congratulate my colleagues on passing this legislation. It is my hope that the House-Senate Conference on this bill can be resolved soon. We owe it to the American people to ensure that they have fair, open, and accurate elections.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Nothing is more indicative of the support for the Institute than the cosponsorship of my two colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Jeffords, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over most environmental matters before the Congress. I thank Senator Smith and Senator Jeffords for their critical support, and I look forward to working with them to enact this important, bipartisan legislation. This is a matter of some urgency as the existing authorization will expire in this fiscal year. I look forward to working with the cosponsors of this legislation and the rest of my colleagues to move this bill forward expeditiously to ensure continuing support for the valuable services of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I would like to discuss an issue I have discussed before, an issue that was addressed by the administration's proposal in the 2003 budget to delay the auction dates for spectrum being used by broadcasters. In 1997, Congress ventured down a path that we hoped would lead to a revolution for the American consumer--digital television. Congress took action to support the transition to digital television, specifically high definition digital television, because of its potential to give Americans sharp movie-quality pictures and CD-quality sound, and took the extraordinary step of giving the broadcast industry a huge amount of spectrum for free--a $70 billion gift. During consideration of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, broadcasters touted DTV technology as a competitive necessity that would preserve free over-the-air television in the new digital millennium. They sought legislation intended to speed and facilitate a transition from analog to digital television broadcasting. Their requests for special treatment were fulfilled. At the time, the Wall Street Journal described Congress' action as a ``planned multibillion dollar handout for wealthy TV-station owners.'' While other industries must purchase their spectrum in competitive auctions, in the case of digital TV, Congress decided to give away the spectrum. At the same time, Congress also decided that broadcasters could keep their old analog spectrum until 2006, or until 85 percent of TV homes in a market could receive digital signals. During the debate on the Balanced Budget Act, I expressed my serious reservations with the spectrum provision. At the time I stated: . . . when it comes to the bill's provisions on the analog turnback date, I fear that we have inadvisedly undercut the value this spectrum might otherwise bring at auction by including a waiver standard in this bill that unnecessarily signals to bidders in 2002 that the spectrum they're bidding on may not become available on any definitive date. I was not alone in my concern. In October 2000, the New York Times wrote: By giving the new spectrum away instead of auctioning it off to the highest bidders, Congress deprived the Treasury, and thus taxpayers, of tens of billions of dollars. The giveaway also kept the new spectrum out of the hands of bidders eager to sell digital services. The new spectrum went instead to incumbent broadcasters, who have dawdled. Moreover, if the broadcasters begin to use their digital spectrum primarily to broadcast multiple channels of standard definition, perhaps on a subscription basis, I believe that they will never relinquish the spectrum. This scenario was never mentioned by the broadcasters while they were lobbying Congress for the free spectrum they eventually received. In 1997, Congress mandated that future FCC spectrum licensing should be performed through auctions, ensuring that the spectrum is allocated to parties that value most highly the opportunity to provide wireless products and services, and that compensate the public for the use of its resources. Yet, at the same time, Congress gave away billions of dollars in public assets at the broadcasters' urging and on the promise that the public would get it back, and get superior, free over-the-air service in the bargain. As the President's budget acknowledges, however, this is not happening. The administration is also proposing that beginning in 2007, the broadcasters would be assessed a $500 million annual lease fee for their use of the analog spectrum. If they return their analog spectrum by the 2006 deadline, they will be exempt from the fee. While this proposal has merits and may be justified, I believe that in all likelihood, the broadcasters will never pay. Be assured that a few years from now, the NAB will be marching up to Capitol Hill asking Congress for more time to complete the DTV transition. We should not let this happen. I believe that Congress must address this issue legislatively to protect the American taxpayer and ensure that the DTV transition will become a reality. Congress devoted valuable public assets to the DTV transition and ultimately has the responsibility for finding responsible solutions. The proposal before the FCC that enables broadcasters to further capitalize on the spectrum give-away by allowing the broadcasters to negotiate to vacate the spectrum by 2006 for a price, is not, I note, a responsible solution. In closing, I would like to read a quote from an article that appeared in Business Week last year. Congress should also make broadcasters pay for their valuable real estate by attaching a price tag to the spectrum they now occupy. When they approached Congress hat-in-hand, broadcasters promised something they have yet to deliver. Now that this has become abundantly clear, they shouldn't get a free ride on taxpayers' backs. What they should do is fork over the going rate for whatever airspace they occupy. That's what cellphone companies are doing. It has been almost 5 years since the spectrum giveaway and the transition to digital television has barely materialized. The American taxpayers first lost the auction value of the spectrum. Now, they have no real certainty of what they're likely to get in return, or when they are likely to get it. The situation is a mess, characterized by more finger pointing than progress. Regardless of who is to blame, this much is clear: By 2006, this country will not have the transmission facilities, the digital content, nor the reception equipment necessary to ensure that 85 percent of the population will be able to receive digital television. In fact, recent statistics show that consumers have yet to embrace digital television. The Consumer Electronics Association reports that 1.4 million DTV sets were sold last year, of which 97,000 were integrated units containing digital tuners. However, we received testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee last year that over 33 million analog sets had been sold in 2000 alone. While DTV sales have been increasing each year, an overwhelming majority of Americans are still purchasing analog sets. Given the uncertainty surrounding the return of the spectrum currently occupied by broadcasters, the administration has proposed shifting the auction for TV channels 60-69 from the elapsed 2000 deadline to 2004. Additionally, the proposal would shift the auction of TV channels 52-59 from 2002 to 2006. According to OMB projections, shifting the auctions to later dates would increase expected revenues by $6.7 billion. The administration has concluded that if legislative action is not taken to shift the auction dates, potential auction participants may hesitate to bid for this spectrum without certainty of when the broadcasters may actually vacate it. At the same time, however, even if we act to change the dates, I also believe that years from now Congress is likely to again find itself attempting to shift the auction dates because the broadcasters will still occupy the spectrum. I hold this view because last year, the Commerce Committee held hearings on the transition to digital television. During that hearing I asked the National Association of Broadcasters, NAB, whether or not they believed they were going to reach 85 percent of the homes in America by 2006. The NAB's response, ``Originally, the expectations and the projections that [we] looked at, was for that transition to take as long as possibly 2015.'' I believe that there's not a snowball's chance in Gila Bend, AZ, that the broadcasters will vacate this spectrum by 2006, or that, despite my best efforts, that broadcasters will be penalized for squatting, as the President has proposed, if they occupy this spectrum after 2006. Some broadcasters have suggested that they may use their digital spectrum to multicast standard definition signals and provide other ``ancillary'' services, competing against companies and technologies that had to pay for the spectrum they use. I worry that if broadcasters provide ``ancillary'' services using the spectrum they received for free, they will have a distinct competitive advantage over wireless companies who pay the public for the use of its spectrum. I yield the floor.