A bill to modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names.

Mr. President, communities within the State of New Mexico and throughout the country will soon be faced with a costly situation that was not of their making. Beginning in 2006, Federal drinking water regulations established by the EPA will require substantial reductions in the amount of arsenic present in that water. Today the limit is 50 parts per billion in 2006 it will be 10 parts per billion. Arsenic is indeed a poison when ingested at high amounts. It is also naturally occurring in much of the groundwater throughout the nation. Indeed, in Albuquerque, NM, the natural levels of arsenic are around 13 parts per billion. This illustrates the problem that the new standards will create.

The bill that I introduce today recognizes that in some parts of America, the burden will be too great for some communities to bear.

The bill does the following: (1) finds that small communities may not have the resources to meet the new arsenic standards and that Federal programs are not in place to address the issue; (2) creates a grant program for many small communities to help upgrade their water systems; (3) ensures that not less than 20 percent of the grant monies go to communities with less than 50,000 residents; and (4) authorizes appropriations of $1.9 billion for FY2006 and for each year through

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``American Indian Reservation Transportation Improvement Program Act.'' This act will provide the people of Indian Country with the resources they need to upgrade their decaying road system.

In 1982, when I served on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, several members of the Navajo Nation Tribal Council Committee on Transportation approached me with an interesting proposition. These Navajo Councilmen believed the time had come for Indian tribes to participate directly in our National Highway Trust Fund programs.

I agreed with these gentlemen, the Senate agreed with me, and the Congress and President Reagan approved Indian tribal participation in the U.S. Department of Transportation highway construction program for the first time in our Nation's history.

By the mid-1980s, Indian Reservation Roads, IRR, funding was at about $100 million per year nationwide. By the late 1980s, however, IRR funding fell to about $80 million per year. In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, for the 1990s, we were able to raise this critical highway construction funding to about $190 million per year.

Then, in TEA-21, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, we succeeded in bringing annual IRR funding up to $275 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.

As we seek to promote economic opportunities on our Nation's tribal reservations, I believe it is imperative that we once again increase this vital infrastructure funding. I am aware that many groups have advocated for much greater increases in funding for Indian Reservation Roads. While I am sympathetic to the need for such large increases, I am keenly aware of competing needs around the country for medical research, economic stimulus, and for our national defense, to name just a few. Therefore, I am compelled to recommend increases for the IRR program that are more likely to win acceptance among my colleagues.

For highway construction, I am recommending an immediate increase of $55 million in the first year to a new total of $330 million. My bill would then increase the amount for construction by $30 million each year so that the program receives $480 million in the final year of the authorization. For the Indian bridge program, I am recommending $15 million per year, an increase of $6 million annually. And for state roads that serve as key bus routes for Indian children, primarily on our Nation's largest Indian reservation--the Navajo Nation--I am recommending increasing this vital funding from $1.5 million per year to $3 million to retroactively fund fiscal years 2004 and 2005, to $4 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and $5 million for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

My final recommendation is to create a rural transit program for Indian reservations. Because the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration each have their areas of expertise that can make such a program a success, my legislation will require the two agencies to work together for the benefit of the tribes who participate in this program. My suggestion is to fund this program at $20 million.

In closing, I thank the Navajo Nation Transportation Committee and the tribal transportation department for keeping me informed of their progress and continuing needs. I believe my bill will be a positive answer to their requests. In addition, the Pueblo Indians and Apache Indians of New Mexico have continuing development needs, including new and improved roads to reach their many attractions for tourists and other visitors.

I ask my colleagues to join me in increasing the Indian Reservation Roads program funds in our Federal highways programs to the degree I have requested in this bill. I thank my colleagues and urge their support for these increases as we reauthorize TEA-21 for 6 more years.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing the Bisti PRLA Dispute Resolution Act of 2005, which will resolve a conflict regarding coal mining leases in New Mexico and which will confirm the completion of all Navajo Nation land selections in New Mexico under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. Arch Coal Company and the Navajo Nation have been deadlocked within the Department of the Interior appeals process regarding certain preference right lease applications, PRLAs, in the Bisti region of northwestern New Mexico. When enacted, this legislation will resolve a complex set of issues arising from legal rights the Arch Coal Company acquired in Federal lands, which are now situated among lands which constitute tribal property and the allotments of members of the Navajo Nation. Both Arch Coal and the Navajo Nation support this legislation to resolve the situation in a manner that is mutually beneficial. In addition, this legislation will serve to mandate the completion of a longstanding set of land selections the Navajo Nation made under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. In 1984 amendments to that act, Congress provided the Navajo Nation with its final opportunity, within 18 months of passage of the amendments, to select lands in New Mexico as provided in section 11 of the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. The Navajo Nation exercised its rights under the 1984 Amendments, but since has sought to review, revise, and seek to select other lands to the potential detriment of mineral lessees holding leases on Federal public lands near the Navajo reservation. This legislation would clarify Congress's intent that the nation no longer has land selection rights available to it in New Mexico under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act.

There are many reasons the solution embodied in this bill achieves broad benefits to the interested parties and the public. It will resolve a longstanding conflict between the Navajo Nation and Arch Coal and allow the Navajo Nation to complete the land selections in New Mexico that were made in the 1980s to promote tribal member resettlement following the partition of lands in Arizona to the Hopi Tribe. Specifically, section 4(a)(1) will clarify and confirm that the Navajo Nation already has selected the lands to which it entitled under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act and has no further rights under that act to select lands in New Mexico other than those already selected by the Navajo Nation in the 1980s.

The bill also guarantees that Arch Coal, Inc. will be compensated for the economic value of its coal reserves. An independent panel will make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior regarding the fair market value of the coal reserves, gives the company bidding rights, protects a State's financial interest in its share of Federal Mineral Leasing Act payments, and allows the Navajo Nation beneficial ownership in their lands.

The Secretary of the Interior will issue a certificate of bidding rights to Arch Coal upon relinquishment of its interests in the PRLAs. The amount of that certificate will equal the fair market value of the coal reserves as defined by the Department of the Interior's regulations. A panel consisting of representatives of the Department of the Interior, Arch Coal, and the Governors of Wyoming and New Mexico will help determine fair market value. While the Interior Department is authorized to exchange PRLAs for bidding rights, the Department has not done so, largely because of the difficulty it perceives in determining the fair market value of the coal reserves. The panel method in this legislation will promote the objectivity of that process.

Upon the relinquishment of the PRLAs and the issuance of a certificate of bidding rights, the Department of the Interior will execute patents to the Navajo Nation of the lands encompassed by the PRLAs. This is a win-win situation for all parties involved, is endorsed by the affected parties, and is a fair resolution to this ongoing problem.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban Government.

My colleagues and I believe in the fundamental principle that property rights must be respected and that it is wrong for governments to take property from individuals and companies, whether nationals or foreigners, without payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation. We uphold the firmly established principle of our law and public policy that foreign confiscatory measures must never be given effect on property situated in the United States.

When the Castro regime took power in Cuba, it engaged in a program of wholesale confiscation of property in Cuba, including property owned by Cuban nationals as well as by U.S. and other non-Cuban nationals. The Cuban Government also purported to extend the effects of the confiscation to property, such as trademarks, that the confiscation victims owned in other countries, and took other actions in an attempt to seize control of such assets.

To protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban government, Congress enacted Section 211 of H.R. 4328, PL 105-277, in 1998. This law, referred to as Section 211, prohibits enforcement of U.S. rights to trademarks confiscated by the Cuban Government, except with the consent of the legitimate owner. Section 211 simply made it clear that the universal U.S. policy against giving effect to foreign confiscations of U.S. property applies with equal force in the case of U.S. trademarks confiscated by Cuba.

Section 211 was challenged in the World Trade Organization, WTO, by the European Union, EU. In January 2002, the WTO appellate body finally resolved that challenge by finding in favor of the United States on all points except one. The appellate body made a narrow finding that, because Section 211 on its face does not apply to U.S. nationals, it is inconsistent with the national-treatment and most-favored-nation principles under the TRIPs Agreement. The appellate body fully supported the principle embodied in Section 211, that is, the non- recognition of uncompensated confiscations and the protection of intellectual property ownership rights. The revision required to broaden the application of Section 211 to include U.S. nationals amounts to no more than a minor, technical fix.

The legislation that I introduce today makes it clear that this well- founded law applies to all parties claiming rights in confiscated Cuban trademarks, regardless of nationality. Such a technical correction will satisfy the WTO ruling and prevent the EU from applying trade sanctions against the United States at the end of this year. Moreover, this legislation does three things: it maintains protection for original owners of confiscated Cuban trademarks; it applies to all people, regardless of nationality; and it clarifies that trademarks and trade names confiscated by the Cuban Government will not be recognized in the United States when the assertion is being made by someone who knew or had reason to know that the mark was confiscated.

This bill does not in any way decide which party owns a Cuban trademark in the U.S. nor does Section 211 prevent the Cuban Government or its various entities from having access to our courts or from registering legitimate trademarks in the U.S. As long as the trademark was not confiscated, the Cuban Government can legally register any trademark it desires. Moreover, even if the Cuban Government stole a trademark in the 1960s, it can still register the trademark in the U.S as long as the original owner has consented.

Once revised, Section 211 is consistent with all of our international treaty obligations including the Inter-American Convention on Trademarks. Article 3 of the Inter-American Convention expressly allows non-recognition of a trademark when such recognition would be contrary to the public order or public policy of the state in which recognition is sought. There is no doubt whatsoever that allowing title to U.S. property to be determined by a foreign confiscation violates U.S. public policy. Section 211 simply makes it clear that the universal U.S. policy against giving effect to foreign confiscations of U.S. property applies with equal force in the case of U.S. trademarks confiscated by Cuba. Nothing in any treaty or in international law is inconsistent with that rule of U.S. law.

I believe this piece of legislation is a simple technical corrections bill which will ensure that a fairly simple, but important, U.S. law is WTO-compliant.

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

Mr. President, it has been nearly 4 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the days, weeks, and months since that day, the American people have braced themselves for the possibility of another terrorist attack on our homeland. After all, we know all too well that al-Qaida is a stealthy, sophisticated, and patient enemy, and that its leadership is extremely motivated to launch another devastating attack on American soil and American citizens.

In fact, outside the United States, al-Qaida and affiliates of al- Qaida have continued to be enormously active, responsible for numerous terrorist attacks on foreign soil in the last few years:

2001 (Dec.): Man tried to denote shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

2002 (April): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, including 14 German tourists.

2002 (May): Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.

2002 (June): Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.

2002 (Oct.): Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing one.

2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, mostly Australian citizens.

2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16.

2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

2003 (May): Four bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.

2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.

2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia housing compound, killing 17.

2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.

2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.

2004 (March): Ten terrorists bombs exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400.

2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.

2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed nine.

2004 (Dec.): Terrorists enter the U.S. Consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, killing nine (including 4 attackers).

It is precisely because al-Qaida is so aggressive, so motivated, and so demonstrably hostile to America, that I am so grateful that, to date, al-Qaida still has not successfully launched another terrorist attack on our own soil. There are undoubtedly many reasons for this. First and foremost, I am profoundly thankful to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, who fight the terrorists abroad so that we do not have to face them at home. I also firmly believe that our efforts to strengthen anti-terrorism and law enforcement tools right here at home have much to do with this record of success and peace in our homeland to date.

It is within this important context that a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing tomorrow morning will commence a new round of discussions about the USA PATRIOT Act. As I explained in an op-ed published in the Washington Times just this morning, I welcome that hearing, because the American people deserve an honest, responsible, and fair discussion to ensure that we are indeed fulfilling our dual responsibilities to protect national security and civil liberties alike.

Unfortunately, the debate about the USA PATRIOT Act has not always met that standard. Last fall, just weeks before the Presidential election, we even witnessed false reports in newspapers across the country that a Federal court had struck down parts of the act as unconstitutional. False reports and scare tactics serve no legitimate cause and greatly disserve the American people.

The war on terrorism must be fought aggressively but consistently with the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. Whenever real civil liberties problems do arise, we must learn about them right away, so that we can fix them swiftly.

It is for precisely this reason that I have long been concerned about false allegations of civil rights deprivations. Every false allegation undermines every true allegation, and that hurts us all. After all, scaring people about false civil rights deprivations unnecessarily divides our Nation and makes no one safer. If anything, false claims about civil liberties actually make it harder to monitor real civil liberties issues in the future--for the same reason that eventually no one listened to the fabled little boy who kept ``crying wolf.''

After several weeks of negotiation, Congress in 2001 enacted the USA PATRIOT Act by overwhelming bipartisan margins--98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House. At the time, Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed that the legislation had struck a careful and wise balance between national security and civil liberties.

The record continues to be strong to this day. As Senator Dianne Feinstein at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing during the last Congress, ``I have never had a single abuse of the PATRIOT Act reported to me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and said they had none.''

The ACLU did allege in a press release last September that a Federal court had struck down parts of the USA PATRIOT Act--calling the decision ``a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice Department.'' See Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). The litigation is currently on appeal.

Newspapers across the country immediately repeated the ACLU's message. But as legal experts immediately discovered, there were two important problems with the allegation: they were attacking the wrong person, and the wrong law.

In fact, the court had actually struck down a law authored by Senator Patrick Leahy during the 1980s. That statute balanced the national interest in protecting electronic communications privacy against the legitimate needs of national security, by establishing a procedure for obtaining electronic communications records in certain national security investigations through the use of so-called ``national security letters.'' The USA PATRIOT Act amended the law to make clear that such letters could be issued in terrorism investigations as well.

So the statute in question was written by Leahy, not Ashcroft. And it was the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, not the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001. Indeed, the USA PATRIOT Act did not change a single word of any provision attacked by that court.

What's more, in 1986, the ACLU endorsed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. And shortly after that law was approved by the Senate on a voice vote and the House by unanimous consent, the chief legislative counsel of the ACLU called it a ``significant advancement of privacy rights of citizens in the age of new communications technology.''

None of this stopped the ACLU in 2004, however, from charging that the court's ruling was ``the first to strike down any of the vast new surveillance powers authorized by the Patriot Act.''

The ACLU has since backed down and admitted that they had attacked the wrong law. As ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer eventually conceded, ``the provisions that we challenged and that the court objected to were in the statute before the Patriot Act was passed. We could have raised the same objections before the power was expanded.'' Nevertheless, it hurts all of us whenever an allegation about civil liberties is discredited--because it makes it that much easier to ignore legitimate civil liberties problems that may arise in the future.

It's also worth noting that the primary controversy in the litigation--whether judicial review is available to scrutinize the issuance of national security letters--was not actually disputed by the government. To the contrary, the Justice Department agreed that there should be judicial review. The court simply concluded that the

1986 law was not drafted with sufficient clarity to authorize such review.

Today, I introduce legislation to cure this technical defect, and to amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to make explicit the availability of judicial review to examine national security letters. The legislation is entitled the Electronic Communications Privacy Judicial Review and Improvement Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, as well as a section-by-section analysis of the legislation prepared by my office, be printed in the Record.

I hope that this legislation will be enacted in the same bipartisan spirit that put both the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act on the books. And I hope that future discussions about the war on terrorism, civil liberties, and the USA PATRIOT Act will be honest, responsible, and fair.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban Government.

My colleagues and I believe in the fundamental principle that property rights must be respected and that it is wrong for governments to take property from individuals and companies, whether nationals or foreigners, without payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation. We uphold the firmly established principle of our law and public policy that foreign confiscatory measures must never be given effect on property situated in the United States.

When the Castro regime took power in Cuba, it engaged in a program of wholesale confiscation of property in Cuba, including property owned by Cuban nationals as well as by U.S. and other non-Cuban nationals. The Cuban Government also purported to extend the effects of the confiscation to property, such as trademarks, that the confiscation victims owned in other countries, and took other actions in an attempt to seize control of such assets.

To protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban government, Congress enacted Section 211 of H.R. 4328, PL 105-277, in 1998. This law, referred to as Section 211, prohibits enforcement of U.S. rights to trademarks confiscated by the Cuban Government, except with the consent of the legitimate owner. Section 211 simply made it clear that the universal U.S. policy against giving effect to foreign confiscations of U.S. property applies with equal force in the case of U.S. trademarks confiscated by Cuba.

Section 211 was challenged in the World Trade Organization, WTO, by the European Union, EU. In January 2002, the WTO appellate body finally resolved that challenge by finding in favor of the United States on all points except one. The appellate body made a narrow finding that, because Section 211 on its face does not apply to U.S. nationals, it is inconsistent with the national-treatment and most-favored-nation principles under the TRIPs Agreement. The appellate body fully supported the principle embodied in Section 211, that is, the non- recognition of uncompensated confiscations and the protection of intellectual property ownership rights. The revision required to broaden the application of Section 211 to include U.S. nationals amounts to no more than a minor, technical fix.

The legislation that I introduce today makes it clear that this well- founded law applies to all parties claiming rights in confiscated Cuban trademarks, regardless of nationality. Such a technical correction will satisfy the WTO ruling and prevent the EU from applying trade sanctions against the United States at the end of this year. Moreover, this legislation does three things: it maintains protection for original owners of confiscated Cuban trademarks; it applies to all people, regardless of nationality; and it clarifies that trademarks and trade names confiscated by the Cuban Government will not be recognized in the United States when the assertion is being made by someone who knew or had reason to know that the mark was confiscated.

This bill does not in any way decide which party owns a Cuban trademark in the U.S. nor does Section 211 prevent the Cuban Government or its various entities from having access to our courts or from registering legitimate trademarks in the U.S. As long as the trademark was not confiscated, the Cuban Government can legally register any trademark it desires. Moreover, even if the Cuban Government stole a trademark in the 1960s, it can still register the trademark in the U.S as long as the original owner has consented.

Once revised, Section 211 is consistent with all of our international treaty obligations including the Inter-American Convention on Trademarks. Article 3 of the Inter-American Convention expressly allows non-recognition of a trademark when such recognition would be contrary to the public order or public policy of the state in which recognition is sought. There is no doubt whatsoever that allowing title to U.S. property to be determined by a foreign confiscation violates U.S. public policy. Section 211 simply makes it clear that the universal U.S. policy against giving effect to foreign confiscations of U.S. property applies with equal force in the case of U.S. trademarks confiscated by Cuba. Nothing in any treaty or in international law is inconsistent with that rule of U.S. law.

I believe this piece of legislation is a simple technical corrections bill which will ensure that a fairly simple, but important, U.S. law is WTO-compliant.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduce today be printed in the Record.