Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2259 for Senator Smith and myself.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2218.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is an amendment I am offering with Senator Hutchison and also with cosponsors Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd, Murray, and Salazar. I ask unanimous consent that all those Senators be listed as cosponsors on amendment No. 2218.

Mr. President, let me briefly describe the amendment. It increases funding for the advanced placement programs to the level the President requested in his budget, submitted to the Congress earlier this year.

I ask that amendment be set aside.

I ask that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2219.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Reid, Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd, and Salazar be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

This is an amendment to maintain current funding for the school dropout prevention program that is authorized under No Child Left Behind. The underlying bill would completely eliminate funding for dropout prevention, which I think would be a terrible mistake. This amendment is essential in order that that not occur. Nationally, only two-thirds of our 9th graders will graduate from high school with a diploma after completing the 12th grade. And, only about 50 percent of our Nation's African American, Hispanic, and Native American students will graduate with a high school diploma alongside their classmates.

Sadly, a recent report by Educational Testing Services, ETS, makes it clear that the dropout crisis is actually getting worse; the high school completion rate has been steadily declining in 43 States. Even more alarming, the report concludes that students are dropping out at a younger age, meaning dropouts are even less educated now than in previous years.

Yet, while dropout rates continue to rise, the Federal Government's response has unfortunately diminished. According to a recent GAO report, the Department of Education has done very little to help States increase graduation rates, and in fact, has failed to disseminate information about effective dropout prevention strategies.

GAO found that the Department of Education had failed to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of various State and local interventions designed to increase high school graduation rates. As a result, schools and districts may not be using the most effective approaches to help their students stay in school and graduate.

In addition, Congress has significantly cut funding for the school dropout prevention program in recent years. The underlying bill, however, completely eliminates funding for dropout prevention, ostensibly because local school districts can use part of their Title I funds for dropout prevention.

It is clear, however, that an allowable use of Title I funds is insufficient to stem the tide, as dropout rates continue to rise. The ETS report concludes that our failure to provide adequate resources for school dropout prevention is ``social dynamite.''

The response of the Federal Government to this crisis is wholly inadequate, and in fact, is moving in the wrong direction. Dropout rates continue to climb, and the economic consequences are devastating for our younger and less educated population of dropouts. The reality is that in 2002, a high school dropout earned less than $23,000 per year, not enough for a family to be self-sufficient and pay for the basic necessities of life, such as food, housing, and health care.

Moreover, I believe this dropout crisis places our economic security in peril. How will this country continue to compete in a global economy when only two-thirds of our high school students graduate high school. An educated workforce is the foundation for our future economic strength.

I am offering this amendment to the FY 06 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill to add $4.9 million to maintain funding for dropout prevention, representing the current funding level. This amount is offset by amounts made available to the Department of Education for administrative expenses and salaries.

I believe this offset is reasonable, given that in the past few years alone, the Department of Education has spent millions of dollars on public relations contracts and grants to promote certain Department policies and priorities, some of which violated Federal law. I believe, however, reducing the dropout rate is a higher priority than promoting the Department's own agenda. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Again, I ask to have that amendment laid aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2262.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar be added as a cosponsor of this amendment, No. 2262.

Mr. President, let me speak for just a very few minutes on this amendment. Then I see there are other Senators seeking recognition. I will not delay them long.

This is a very important amendment on which I will request we actually have a rollcall vote tomorrow. It is an amendment to invest an additional $60 million in eight different programs, in a combination of eight different programs. They are very important to the Hispanic community in this country. The eight programs are migrant education, English language acquisition programs, the High School Equivalency Program, the College Assistance Migrant Program, Dropout Prevention, English as a Second Language Programs, local family information centers, and the Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program.

The amendment is strongly supported by the Hispanic Education Coalition, which is an ad hoc coalition of national organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for more than 40 million Hispanics living in the United States, including groups such as the National Council of La Raza, HACU, and MALDEF. The National PTA is also a very strong supporter of the amendment.

The Title I Migrant Education Program was established to provide a compensatory education program designed to deal with the difficulties encountered by children of migrant workers as a consequence of their mobility. Some of these children attend three or four schools in a single school year.

They have a great need for coordination of educational services among the States and local districts where they live, often for short periods of time. The MEP builds the support structures for migrant students so that they can achieve high levels of success both in and outside of school.

The U.S. Department of Education reports that more than 750,000 students were identified as eligible for the program in fiscal year 2001. Additional funds are necessary to ensure that these children are able to meet the challenges mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. This amendment will provide an additional $9.6 million in needed funding.

This amendment would also increase funding to States and local school districts in order to ensure that as many of the 5.5 million children with limited English skills as possible learn English, develop high levels of academic attainment, and meet the same challenging State academic standards as all children.

Title III is a formula grant program that distributes funding to all 50 States based on the number of limited English proficient, LEP, and recent immigrant students. The funds are used for developing effective language acquisition programs; training for bilingual/ESL teachers and regular teachers and educational personnel; parent involvement; and providing services for recently arrived immigrant students. This amendment requests an additional $10.3 million for Language Acquisition Grants, which restores the program's funding to its fiscal year 2003 level.

This amendment would provide modest increases for the High School Equivalency Program, HEP, and the College Assistance Migrant Program, CAMP. The HEP helps migrant students who have dropped out of high school earn a GED. The CAMP assists migrant students in their first year of college with both counseling and stipends. These programs provide farmworker migrant students with education opportunities and support that will help them to become productive members of society.

Migrant students are among the most disadvantaged youth in this Nation. Current estimates place the dropout rate for migrant youth at between 50 and 60 percent. Before CAMP, there was no record of a child of migrant farm workers ever having attended college. Both programs have been very successful in helping migrant students become productive members of society.

According to the Department of Education, in 2003-2004, almost 10,000 students were served by HEP CAMP, and 63 percent of the HEP participants received a GED, and 84 percent of CAMP students completed their first year of college in good standing. This amendment provides an additional $5.7 million for these programs.

The Dropout Prevention program helps States and school districts to implement research-based, sustainable, and coordinated school dropout prevention and re-entry programs in order to raise student achievement. At a time when schools are focused on narrowing achievement gaps between differing subgroups of students, it seems that Congress would want to retain Dropout Prevention, a program specifically aimed at providing schools with the tools to help students achieve a high school degree.

Support for Dropout Prevention is even more significant when considering that the primary source of Federal funding for public schools, authorized through the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, focuses mainly on elementary schools. More than 90 percent of Tit1e I funds-- the principal NCLB program--are directed to elementary schools. Such an emphasis on elementary education is necessary and appropriate, but equally important is continuing an investment of resources throughout the education continuum in order to meet the needs of middle level and high school students.

The Dropout Prevention program is the only Federal program actively working to reduce the Nation's dropout rates, and, as recent headlines tell us, it is a problem that is far more severe than previous data indicated.

A report by the Urban Institute finds that only 68 percent of all students in the public high school class of 2001 graduated. Furthermore, it states that only 50 percent of all black students and 53 percent of Hispanic students graduate. Nearly half of all black and Hispanic students do not graduate from high school. This is a problem that has reached enormous proportions. The Dropout Prevention program was

eliminated in this legislation. This amendment restores $5 million to this program.

The Local Family Information Centers program was authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act to provide parents of Title I students, including English language learners, with information about their children's schools so that they can help their children to meet the high standards we have set under NCLB.

The Local Family Information Centers also help parents to hold their local and State school officials accountable and become more involved in their children's education. This amendment would increase funding for these centers by $13 million.

The need for increased funding for English as a Second Language, ESL, is evident by the growing demand for services and the lack of resources to meet that need.

Enrollment in Adult ESL has increased 105 percent over the past 10 years, yet there is a lack of programs and funding to ensure that all who desire to learn English have access to appropriate services.

Currently, community-based organizations must piece programs together with volunteer labor and facilities. The need for more targeted services is overwhelming. Demand for English-language instruction far outweighs supply, waiting lists for classes typically range from several months to years, and many States do not have the capacity to meet the demand.

The current $70 million in funding is insufficient to meet the enormous demand for ESL services. As the labor market continues to require English-proficient labor, investing in ESL programs will strengthen the labor pool and return a more versatile productive workforce. This amendment provides an additional $6.5 million for ESL programs.

Currently, 35 percent of Hispanics are under the age of 18. The Educational Testing Service has projected the U.S. higher education system will grow by 3.5 million additional students by 2015 and that nearly 40 percent of these new students will be Hispanic. HSIs serve the largest concentrations of the Nation' s youngest and largest ethnic population.

The impending emergence of more than 100 new HSIs, mostly in California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico and Illinois, in the next few years and the rapid growth of the Hispanic college-age population underscore the urgency for immediate, major, and sustained increases in Title V funding.

At a time when the current labor force is reaching retirement age in substantial numbers, Hispanics already represent one of every three new workers joining the U.S. labor force, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. By 2025, the Bureau projects that one of two new workers joining the U.S. labor force will be Hispanic. This amendment would provide an additional $9.9 million in assistance to these great institutions.

We must do everything possible to provide every child with the best education we can. This amendment would provide small, but much-needed increases to programs that can make a difference in the lives of millions of children. I urge my fellow Senators to support these greatly needed programs by providing them with the proper resources. I will seek some additional time tomorrow before we actually have a vote on this amendment in order to further explain to my colleagues the reasons this amendment needs to be adopted.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 2065.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, this is an amendment I offer on behalf of myself, Senator Specter, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Levin, Senator Stabenow, Senator Brownback, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Harkin, Senator Durbin, Senator Hagel, and Senator Santorum. This is a bipartisan amendment which tries to assist many of our smaller airports around the country.

Under the current formula in the statute, airports that have at least 10,000 boardings each year are called primary airports. Those airports receive entitlement of $1 million per year from the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. The nonprimary airports--those that do not have the 10,000 annual boardings--receive only $150,000.

In the wake of September 11, many airports saw their annual boardings plummet. There were a number of these smaller primary airports, many in rural areas, that faced the temporary loss of their $1 million annual entitlement.

Vision 100, which is Public Law 108-176, gave certain primary airports 2 years--fiscal year 2004 and 2005--to regain that minimum 10,000 boarding level. During that time, they retained the annual $1 million entitlement they had been receiving. These airports are designated as virtual primary airports in the statute. The 2-year grace period in Vision 100 for the virtual primary airports expired on September 30, just a few weeks ago.

The amendment I am offering today to the legislation before the Senate gives the virtual primary airports 1 additional year--fiscal year 2006--to regain a level of 10,000 boarding. Many of the virtual primary airports saw substantial increases in their boardings in fiscal year 2004. There are 10 fewer airports that need this extension for fiscal year 2006 than would have needed it or that did need it in fiscal year 2005.

This is the right thing to do. This is important to many of our States. I have a list of all the airports that will be adversely affected if we do not agree to this provision. One of those airports is in my home State in Roswell, NM, that is in danger of losing this funding if we do not extend this for 1 additional year.

This is a bipartisan bill. We have 11 cosponsors of the legislation. It is good legislation. The policy is good. We have gone to the Congressional Budget Office and they have indicated there is no score attached to this bill. This is not a money issue. There is not going to be an increased burden on the taxpayer. I very much urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a man of hope and deep conviction who has displayed a tireless commitment to improving the lives of New Mexicans. After serving the State of New Mexico for 22 years, Judge Tommy Jewell stepped down from the bench on September 30, 2005. With his resignation, New Mexico lost one of its finest, most compassionate public servants.

Judge Jewell began his career by breaking down barriers. In 1983, he became the first African American ever appointed to the New Mexico bench. In 1991, after serving for 8 years in Metropolitan Court as Chief Judge, Judge Jewell was appointed to Children's Court in New Mexico's Second Judicial District. Judge Jewell approached each case and each child who came before him with the same underlying philosophy: no one is beyond the reach of hope and everyone is capable of turning his or her life around and moving it in the right direction.

In dealing with juvenile offenders in the Children's Court, Judge Jewell emphasized the need for these young people to take responsibility for their actions. However, he also conveyed his strong belief that, by acknowledging their mistakes and owning up to the consequences, the troubled teens with whom he dealt could find power within themselves to change their life for the better. While striving to keep a firm hand and not let serious offenses go unmet by serious consequences, Judge Jewell believed that there was a degree of goodness in every person who stood before him. Moreover, he was unrelenting in his contention that children would learn more about themselves and how to contribute positively to society by working in recovery programs than they ever could while sitting on a bench behind jail bars.

Well liked and respected by his colleagues, Judge Jewell was honored for Outstanding Judicial Service by the State Bar of New Mexico in 1997 and, in 2001, was named Outstanding Judge by the Albuquerque Bar Association.

Judge Jewell's work in the legal field prior to becoming a judge helped him develop skills that contributed to his success while serving on the bench. He was a partner in the successful law firm of Jewell, Kelly, and Kitson. After graduating from the University of New Mexico School of Law in 1979, Judge Jewell went to work as a staff attorney with the Legal Aid Society, which provides essential legal services to the poor.

In addition to his success as a dedicated public servant, Tommy Jewell is also a man of many interests and talents. Judge Jewell is an avid musician and drummer in a band. As an undergraduate, he was a member of the New Mexico State University football team. Judge Jewell is also a dedicated family man. He and his wife Judge Angela Jewell, also a longtime public servant, have two children, Thomas and Taja.

During his career as a public servant, Judge Jewell has broken racial barriers and empowered many young New Mexicans by helping them believe in themselves. With his resignation, New Mexico loses one of its most committed and effective judges, but there is no doubt in my mind that Judge Tommy Jewell will continue to serve his State with great passion and success.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2005. This bill will provide local law enforcement in border communities with much needed assistance in combating border-related criminal activity. For far too long, law enforcement agencies operating along the border have had to incur significant costs due to the inability of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. It is time that the Federal Government recognizes that border communities should not have to bear this burden alone.

The bill I am introducing today is aimed at enhancing security in the border region by giving law enforcement agencies the manpower and resources they need to combat border-related crimes. Specifically, the bill would establish a competitive grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to help local law enforcement situated along the border cover some of the costs they incur as a result of dealing with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, stolen vehicles, and other border-related crimes, and authorizes $30 million a year to carry out the program. Funds allocated under the grant program could be used to hire additional personnel, obtain necessary equipment, upgrade law enforcement technology, and cover overtime and transportations costs.

Law enforcement agencies serving communities within 100 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada, as well as any other agencies located outside of this geographical limit located in an area which has been designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as a ``High Impact Area,'' would be eligible to apply for the grants. Priority in awarding grants would go to law enforcement agencies serving communities with populations under 50,000. Two-thirds of the funds would be set aside for the six states with the highest alien apprehension rates and one-third for areas designated as ``High Impact Areas.''

It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to adequately secure the Nation's borders and prevent the flow of undocumented persons and illegal drugs into the country. Despite the fact that the Border Patrol apprehends over 1 million people each year trying to illegally enter the United States, the number of illegal aliens in the United States continues to rise as thousands of individuals enter the country through our porous borders. The border region is also a major corridor for the shipment of drugs--according to the El Paso Intelligence Center, 65 percent of the narcotics that are sold in the United States enter the country through the Southwest border.

By virtue of their proximity to an international border, many of adverse consequences of the failure of the Federal Government to adequately secure the border fall on the border communities. In traveling around the New Mexico-Mexico border region, I have heard repeatedly how drug trafficking, kidnappings, human smuggling, and the destruction of private property, such as the tearing down ranchers' cattle fences, are impacting our communities.

The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Many of the local law enforcement agencies located along the border are small, rural departments charged with patrolling large areas of land with few officers and very limited resources. Counties along the Southwest border are some of the poorest in the country and are not in the position to cover the additional costs associated with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and other border-related crimes.

According to a 2001 study by the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, local law enforcement and criminal justice costs associated with illegal immigration exceed $89 million every year. The States of Arizona and New Mexico have declared states of emergency in order to provide local

law enforcement with immediate assistance in addressing criminal activity along the border. It is time that the Federal Government step up and share some of this burden.

We are making some headway in terms of increasing the number of Border Patrol agents along the border. Despite the fact that the administration only requested funding to hire an additional 210 Border Patrol agents in its 2006 Budget Request, Congress has appropriated enough funding to hire and train an additional 1,500 agents. We are making some progress, and I am pleased that additional agents have been sent to New Mexico, but we must face the reality that much more needs to be done and we are a long way off from securing our borders and preventing the illegal flow of drugs and undocumented person into this country. I believe that this is an area that Congress can, and should, be doing more.

We need more Border Patrol agents, better technology, and a comprehensive strategy to meet our security needs. We also need to reform our broken immigration system so we are able to more effectively target those who pose a threat to our country. However, we must also remember the role local law enforcement play in responding to criminal activity that occurs in the border region. Increasing funding for local law enforcement will help border communities alleviate some of these problems and enhance security in the border region.

Federal assistance is desperately needed to help border law enforcement agencies address the unique challenges that arise from being situated along an international border and the lack of overall border security. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this important bill and give law enforcement the resources they need to meet these challenges.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2005. This bill will provide local law enforcement in border communities with much needed assistance in combating border-related criminal activity. For far too long, law enforcement agencies operating along the border have had to incur significant costs due to the inability of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. It is time that the Federal Government recognizes that border communities should not have to bear this burden alone.

The bill I am introducing today is aimed at enhancing security in the border region by giving law enforcement agencies the manpower and resources they need to combat border-related crimes. Specifically, the bill would establish a competitive grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to help local law enforcement situated along the border cover some of the costs they incur as a result of dealing with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, stolen vehicles, and other border-related crimes, and authorizes $30 million a year to carry out the program. Funds allocated under the grant program could be used to hire additional personnel, obtain necessary equipment, upgrade law enforcement technology, and cover overtime and transportations costs.

Law enforcement agencies serving communities within 100 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada, as well as any other agencies located outside of this geographical limit located in an area which has been designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as a ``High Impact Area,'' would be eligible to apply for the grants. Priority in awarding grants would go to law enforcement agencies serving communities with populations under 50,000. Two-thirds of the funds would be set aside for the six states with the highest alien apprehension rates and one-third for areas designated as ``High Impact Areas.''

It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to adequately secure the Nation's borders and prevent the flow of undocumented persons and illegal drugs into the country. Despite the fact that the Border Patrol apprehends over 1 million people each year trying to illegally enter the United States, the number of illegal aliens in the United States continues to rise as thousands of individuals enter the country through our porous borders. The border region is also a major corridor for the shipment of drugs--according to the El Paso Intelligence Center, 65 percent of the narcotics that are sold in the United States enter the country through the Southwest border.

By virtue of their proximity to an international border, many of adverse consequences of the failure of the Federal Government to adequately secure the border fall on the border communities. In traveling around the New Mexico-Mexico border region, I have heard repeatedly how drug trafficking, kidnappings, human smuggling, and the destruction of private property, such as the tearing down ranchers' cattle fences, are impacting our communities.

The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Many of the local law enforcement agencies located along the border are small, rural departments charged with patrolling large areas of land with few officers and very limited resources. Counties along the Southwest border are some of the poorest in the country and are not in the position to cover the additional costs associated with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and other border-related crimes.

According to a 2001 study by the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, local law enforcement and criminal justice costs associated with illegal immigration exceed $89 million every year. The States of Arizona and New Mexico have declared states of emergency in order to provide local

law enforcement with immediate assistance in addressing criminal activity along the border. It is time that the Federal Government step up and share some of this burden.

We are making some headway in terms of increasing the number of Border Patrol agents along the border. Despite the fact that the administration only requested funding to hire an additional 210 Border Patrol agents in its 2006 Budget Request, Congress has appropriated enough funding to hire and train an additional 1,500 agents. We are making some progress, and I am pleased that additional agents have been sent to New Mexico, but we must face the reality that much more needs to be done and we are a long way off from securing our borders and preventing the illegal flow of drugs and undocumented person into this country. I believe that this is an area that Congress can, and should, be doing more.

We need more Border Patrol agents, better technology, and a comprehensive strategy to meet our security needs. We also need to reform our broken immigration system so we are able to more effectively target those who pose a threat to our country. However, we must also remember the role local law enforcement play in responding to criminal activity that occurs in the border region. Increasing funding for local law enforcement will help border communities alleviate some of these problems and enhance security in the border region.

Federal assistance is desperately needed to help border law enforcement agencies address the unique challenges that arise from being situated along an international border and the lack of overall border security. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this important bill and give law enforcement the resources they need to meet these challenges.

Mr. President, today I join my colleague and the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Domenici, in introducing three bills, by request, to make necessary changes to law regarding the U.S.-affiliated islands. As chairman and ranking minority member of this committee, Senator Domenici and I have a special responsibility for matters relating to our fellow U.S. citizens who live in the territories of the United States. While the people

of the territories are U.S. citizen or nationals, they lack full voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Their problems and concerns are just as deserving of attention as are those of U.S. citizens who live in the 50 States, and it is the committee on Energy and Natural Resources which has the responsibility for considering island issues that are brought to our attention, and for making recommendations, as appropriate, to the full Senate.

The committee is also responsible for authorization and oversight of U.S. financial assistance to the freely associated states of the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands--three sovereign nations that were formerly administered by the U.S. as districts of the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. While not under U.S. sovereignty, these nations enjoy a unique relationship with the U.S. which developed following the Pacific battles of World War II and which continues to be based on our mutual interest in security, democracy, and economic development.

The first bill being introduced, the Compacts of Free Association Amendments Act of 2005, would make several changes to the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act, CFAAA, of 2003, (Public Law 108-188) which was enacted in December 2003. That law continued the close relationships that were established in 1986 between the U.S. and the Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and between the U.S. and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, RMI by revising and extending U.S. financial and program assistance until 2023. Final consensus was not reached in 2003, however, on continuation of U.S. disaster assistance programs and services to the FSM and RMI. Instead, section 105(f)(1)(A) of the CFAAA directed the Secretary of State, in consultation with FEMA, to negotiate disaster assistance agreements with the FSM and RMI, report to Congress on the outcome of the negotiations, and make recommendations to Congress on any necessary changes to law.

On August 19, 2004, the State Department transmitted new agreements regarding disaster assistance to Congress along with the legislative language needed to bring them into effect. Generally, these agreements provide that FEMA and USAID will jointly consult on disaster damage assessments and on disaster declaration recommendations; FEMA will provide all disaster recovery funding consistent with past policy and practice and transfer those funds to USAID which will then administer all disaster response and recovery activities. In addition to approving these new disaster assistance agreements, this bill would make several other conforming, clarifying, and technical amendments to the CFAAA of 2003. The second bill being introduced today would convey submerged lands, out to 3 miles, to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI, and hopefully resolve a long standing dispute between the U.S. and the CNMI over the extent of the CNMI's territorial limit.

The CNMI became a U.S. territory in 1976 pursuant to the covenant between the U.S. and CNMI, as approved by Public Law 94-241. However, interpretation of the covenant regarding the CNMI's territorial limit came into dispute, and then became the subject of discussions under the formal government-to-government consultation procedures of the covenant. The U.S. executive branch took the position that the CNMI had the same territorial limit as the other territories--that is 3 miles-- while the CNMI claimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. After discussions deadlocked, the CNMI pursued their claim in Federal court. Earlier this year, the Federal Appeals court upheld, in Northern Mariana Islands v. United States, 399 F. 3d 1057, the district court decision that the CNMI not only did not have 200-mile jurisdiction but did not have a 3-mile limit either. Establishing Federal ownership up to the mean high-water mark has compromised local authority to manage activities in the near-shore areas, such as shoreline permitting activities that are normally handled by State and local authorities. The District Court is allowing the local government to continue to exercise near-shore jurisdiction temporarily.

On June 6, 2005, the attorney general of the CNMI wrote to Chairman Domenici and myself requesting that legislation be enacted to establish a 3-mile territorial limit for the CNMI--the same distance granted the other territories. This bill would grant the CNMI's request without prejudice to their right to further appeal their claim, and would allow the local government to continue management of near-shore areas.

A second provision in this bill, also requested by the attorney general of the CNMI, would support an alternative process for the resolution of disputes between the U.S. and the CNMI. As mentioned above, there is an existing, but very formal, consultation process established under the covenant which requires the President and the Governor to designate official representatives to hold formal meetings. These procedures have generally been ineffective because their formality makes compromise difficult, particularly for those representing the CNMI. This proposed provision would offer a less formal alternative by indicating that Congress expects the Secretary of the Interior to take initial responsibility for seeking to resolve disputes. It would encourage the Secretary, in consultation with the other agencies involved, to settle any claim arising under the covenant, and it authorizes appropriations for any settlement. It would also allow the Secretary to use other funds that may have been appropriated under the covenant for the settlement of a dispute, if agreed to by the CNMI. For example, article VII of the covenant provides annual direct spending for capital construction projects. Disputes that may arise and be addressed under this new less-formal process include those relating to leases of land for defense purposes, construction of infrastructure, eligibility for Federal programs, or payments due the CNMI.

The third bill being introduced today is requested by the delegate from the United States Virgin Islands, USVI, Donna Christensen, on behalf of herself and the Governor of the USVI. This bill would repeal sections of the United States Code that were enacted in 1936 to determine how real property taxes would be assessed in the USVI. These sections were thought to have been effectively repealed in 1954 with enactment of the Virgin Islands Organic Act--a law that substantially expanded the scope of local self-government. Last year, however, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 1936 law remains in effect. The court ruling has, therefore, effectively overturned 50 years of local tax law. The simple solution to this situation, which this bill proposes, is to repeal the 1936 provisions as soon as possible. This approach is consistent with the intent of the 1954 law, and it is consistent with our general Federal territorial policy of delegating local real property tax policy to the local government.

Consideration of these bills is important to meeting our Nation's responsibilities to the governments and residents of the islands. I look forward to working with Chairman Domenici, the representatives of the island governments, the administration, and the other members of the committee in considering these bills and reporting our recommendations to the Senate.

I am aware of this recommendation and note that it further describes the F-117 as the only stealthy tactical aircraft capable of delivering certain precision munitions currently in the inventory. Clearly, this is a very important capability for national security.

I thank the chairman as well, and look forward to working with him; the ranking member, Senator Inouye and Senator Domenici on this issue in the future.

SSI Eligibility

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Medicare Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act.'' This legislation would improve what are referred to as the Medicare Savings Programs, which includes the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary, QMB, and Specified Low- income Medicare Beneficiary, SLMB, and Qualifying Individual-1 (QI-1) programs that provide cost-sharing assistance for low-income Medicare beneficiaries through the Medicaid program. It would also make permanent the QI-1 program, which expires today due to inaction by the House of Representatives to extend the program.

The QI-1 program was established as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and was authorized for 5 years. In 2002 and 2003, extensions of the program were included in various continuing resolutions. The program was further extended through passage of Public Law 108-448 in 2004, through today's expiration date.

There is no reason that the Congress must participate in this annual last minute scramble to try and extend the program for a few months or a year. It is a disservice to the States, who must watch the Congress closely to constantly prepare to send out disenrollment notices and layoff staff, even though they are relatively certain the program will be extended. But, more importantly, it is a disservice to those that need this important assistance, as many of those enrolled worry this benefit will be taken away and many of those never enrolled never are told of the benefit since States and advocates are spending their time trying to get the program extended rather than conducting outreach.

While I remain very hopeful that the Congress will pass an extension of the QI-1 program for an additional period in the coming week, I am introducing the ``Medicare Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act'' today in the hope that Congress will end this process of temporary extensions and permanently authorize the program, as provided for in this legislation.

To reiterate, low-income senior citizens and disabled Americans nationwide should not be subjected to the constant risk of losing crucial health care benefits. Furthermore, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, the Social Security Administration, SSA, and the States should be spared the administrative burdens and cost associated with reauthorizing the program each year--sometimes more than once in a year.

Furthermore, the bill proposes several improvements to the Medicare Savings Programs and application processes that will make these low- income benefits both more efficient to administer and more accessible to the individuals who need them. It would also seek to simplify the process and make the Medicare Savings Programs more understandable to low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities, as well as State and Federal Government officials.

In New Mexico, over 1,500 low-income Medicare beneficiaries receive the QI-1 benefit, which saves them almost $1,000 in Medicare Part B premium out-of-pocket costs annually. Unfortunately, according to estimates made by the Medicare Rights Center using Census Bureau data, over 11,000 are likely to be eligible. Many are completely unaware of the assistance this program offers.

The same is true among those of us that created the three different Medicare Savings Programs. In fact, I am almost absolutely certain that few of my Senate colleagues could accurately explain how any of these programs work and that is precisely the problem with them. They are intended serve our Nation's most vulnerable, low-income citizens with their Medicare cost-sharing burdens, but do so in a very complicated manner that few can understand. It is no wonder that many of our Nation's elderly and people with disabilities that qualify for this assistance do not participate.

For example, the QI-1 program is Federal grant payment to States for the purpose of paying the Medicare Part B premium, which is $78.20 per month in 2005 and will increase to $88.50 per month or over $1000 per year in 2006, for individuals with income between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Through this Federal grant, States must pay the full amount of the Medicare Part B premium for qualifying individuals but may cap or otherwise limit enrollment if the State projects that further enrollment will result in exhaustion of their State allotment.

Six States had enrollment this year that would exceed their allotment so were forced to cap funding. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, responded to this problem with a rule on August 26, 2005, that reallocated unspent funding from some States to those that had exhausted their funds in order to eliminate the enrollment caps in the States of Oregon, Arizona, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Connecticut.

Three days later Hurricane Katrina hit three of the six States and now their entire health care systems are in chaos, and Congress has failed to act to address their need. While that has gained a great deal of much needed attention and deserves even greater attention from the media and public, the House of Representatives yesterday failed to extend the QI-1 program and went out of session for the week even though it expires today. Senators Grassley and Baucus were working with the House of Representatives on a last minute extension through the introduction of S. 1718, but it failed to move in the waning hours of the fiscal year and the House of Representatives took no action whatsoever.

Even though CMS has apparently notified the Congress that it can continue to run the program for a few days, the failure of the Congress to take action in a timely manner to ensure that disenrollment notices are not sent out by the States to an estimated 185,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries nationwide is absolutely unacceptable and also is deserving of attention and media scrutiny.

Furthermore, while the QI-1 program has always played an important role in helping low-income Medicare afford health care coverage, the QI-1 program would, in the future, play an important role in helping low-income Medicare beneficiaries access prescription drug coverage through Medicare's new drug benefit. Enrollment in the QI-1 program is supposed to automatically qualify a person for the Medicare Part D drug benefit's low-income subsidy beginning on January 1,2006.

To briefly describe the most critical aspects of the legislation, Section 2 of the bill simply provides for one unified name for the Federal programs that offer cost sharing and benefit assistance for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Rather than separately referring to the QMB, SLMB, and QI-1 programs, the bill provides one common name for all of these programs, the ``Medicare Savings Programs.''

Low enrollment in these assistance programs is in large part due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of the programs or benefits offered. This simple change has been pilot tested with Medicare beneficiary groups and found to elicit a positive response and interest from Medicare beneficiaries.

Section 3 of the legislation would make permanent the QI-1 category by incorporating these individuals into the SLMB category at the State Children's Health Insurance Program enhanced matching rate. In addition to simplifying and making permanent the program, States would see a financial benefit from this change.

Section 4 eliminates some of the critical barriers to enrollment. As I noted earlier, just 1,500 of the estimated 11,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries in New Mexico eligible for the QI-1 benefit are enrolled. This section provides for several important enrollment simplification procedures, such as allowing self-certification of income and continuous eligibility, and expanded outreach efforts.

Section 5 eliminates the limit on assets, which is set at $4,000 for an individual and $6,000 for a couple and disqualifies millions of Medicare beneficiaries with very low incomes from qualifying for assistance. Some States have waived or disallowed the counting of some assets for the purposes of eligibility determination and have seen much higher enrollment rates.

I urge the Congress to pass a temporary extension of the QI-1 program early next week, but then to immediately begin work to permanently authorize the QI-1 program and to simplify and streamline all the Medicare Savings Programs. Our Nation's low-income Medicare beneficiaries and the States deserve nothing less.

I ask unanimous consent to print a summary and text of this legislation in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Medicare Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act.'' This legislation would improve what are referred to as the Medicare Savings Programs, which includes the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary, QMB, and Specified Low- income Medicare Beneficiary, SLMB, and Qualifying Individual-1 (QI-1) programs that provide cost-sharing assistance for low-income Medicare beneficiaries through the Medicaid program. It would also make permanent the QI-1 program, which expires today due to inaction by the House of Representatives to extend the program.

The QI-1 program was established as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and was authorized for 5 years. In 2002 and 2003, extensions of the program were included in various continuing resolutions. The program was further extended through passage of Public Law 108-448 in 2004, through today's expiration date.

There is no reason that the Congress must participate in this annual last minute scramble to try and extend the program for a few months or a year. It is a disservice to the States, who must watch the Congress closely to constantly prepare to send out disenrollment notices and layoff staff, even though they are relatively certain the program will be extended. But, more importantly, it is a disservice to those that need this important assistance, as many of those enrolled worry this benefit will be taken away and many of those never enrolled never are told of the benefit since States and advocates are spending their time trying to get the program extended rather than conducting outreach.

While I remain very hopeful that the Congress will pass an extension of the QI-1 program for an additional period in the coming week, I am introducing the ``Medicare Beneficiary Assistance Improvement Act'' today in the hope that Congress will end this process of temporary extensions and permanently authorize the program, as provided for in this legislation.

To reiterate, low-income senior citizens and disabled Americans nationwide should not be subjected to the constant risk of losing crucial health care benefits. Furthermore, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, the Social Security Administration, SSA, and the States should be spared the administrative burdens and cost associated with reauthorizing the program each year--sometimes more than once in a year.

Furthermore, the bill proposes several improvements to the Medicare Savings Programs and application processes that will make these low- income benefits both more efficient to administer and more accessible to the individuals who need them. It would also seek to simplify the process and make the Medicare Savings Programs more understandable to low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities, as well as State and Federal Government officials.

In New Mexico, over 1,500 low-income Medicare beneficiaries receive the QI-1 benefit, which saves them almost $1,000 in Medicare Part B premium out-of-pocket costs annually. Unfortunately, according to estimates made by the Medicare Rights Center using Census Bureau data, over 11,000 are likely to be eligible. Many are completely unaware of the assistance this program offers.

The same is true among those of us that created the three different Medicare Savings Programs. In fact, I am almost absolutely certain that few of my Senate colleagues could accurately explain how any of these programs work and that is precisely the problem with them. They are intended serve our Nation's most vulnerable, low-income citizens with their Medicare cost-sharing burdens, but do so in a very complicated manner that few can understand. It is no wonder that many of our Nation's elderly and people with disabilities that qualify for this assistance do not participate.

For example, the QI-1 program is Federal grant payment to States for the purpose of paying the Medicare Part B premium, which is $78.20 per month in 2005 and will increase to $88.50 per month or over $1000 per year in 2006, for individuals with income between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Through this Federal grant, States must pay the full amount of the Medicare Part B premium for qualifying individuals but may cap or otherwise limit enrollment if the State projects that further enrollment will result in exhaustion of their State allotment.

Six States had enrollment this year that would exceed their allotment so were forced to cap funding. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, responded to this problem with a rule on August 26, 2005, that reallocated unspent funding from some States to those that had exhausted their funds in order to eliminate the enrollment caps in the States of Oregon, Arizona, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Connecticut.

Three days later Hurricane Katrina hit three of the six States and now their entire health care systems are in chaos, and Congress has failed to act to address their need. While that has gained a great deal of much needed attention and deserves even greater attention from the media and public, the House of Representatives yesterday failed to extend the QI-1 program and went out of session for the week even though it expires today. Senators Grassley and Baucus were working with the House of Representatives on a last minute extension through the introduction of S. 1718, but it failed to move in the waning hours of the fiscal year and the House of Representatives took no action whatsoever.

Even though CMS has apparently notified the Congress that it can continue to run the program for a few days, the failure of the Congress to take action in a timely manner to ensure that disenrollment notices are not sent out by the States to an estimated 185,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries nationwide is absolutely unacceptable and also is deserving of attention and media scrutiny.

Furthermore, while the QI-1 program has always played an important role in helping low-income Medicare afford health care coverage, the QI-1 program would, in the future, play an important role in helping low-income Medicare beneficiaries access prescription drug coverage through Medicare's new drug benefit. Enrollment in the QI-1 program is supposed to automatically qualify a person for the Medicare Part D drug benefit's low-income subsidy beginning on January 1,2006.

To briefly describe the most critical aspects of the legislation, Section 2 of the bill simply provides for one unified name for the Federal programs that offer cost sharing and benefit assistance for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Rather than separately referring to the QMB, SLMB, and QI-1 programs, the bill provides one common name for all of these programs, the ``Medicare Savings Programs.''

Low enrollment in these assistance programs is in large part due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of the programs or benefits offered. This simple change has been pilot tested with Medicare beneficiary groups and found to elicit a positive response and interest from Medicare beneficiaries.

Section 3 of the legislation would make permanent the QI-1 category by incorporating these individuals into the SLMB category at the State Children's Health Insurance Program enhanced matching rate. In addition to simplifying and making permanent the program, States would see a financial benefit from this change.

Section 4 eliminates some of the critical barriers to enrollment. As I noted earlier, just 1,500 of the estimated 11,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries in New Mexico eligible for the QI-1 benefit are enrolled. This section provides for several important enrollment simplification procedures, such as allowing self-certification of income and continuous eligibility, and expanded outreach efforts.

Section 5 eliminates the limit on assets, which is set at $4,000 for an individual and $6,000 for a couple and disqualifies millions of Medicare beneficiaries with very low incomes from qualifying for assistance. Some States have waived or disallowed the counting of some assets for the purposes of eligibility determination and have seen much higher enrollment rates.

I urge the Congress to pass a temporary extension of the QI-1 program early next week, but then to immediately begin work to permanently authorize the QI-1 program and to simplify and streamline all the Medicare Savings Programs. Our Nation's low-income Medicare beneficiaries and the States deserve nothing less.

I ask unanimous consent to print a summary and text of this legislation in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Specter to introduce legislation that is important to a number of rural communities located in over half of the States. Our legislation will ensure that over 50 mostly rural airports will not see an 85 percent reduction in their annual grant from the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program.

I think all Senators are well aware of the wide-ranging impact the tragic events of September 11, 2001, have had throughout our economy. One of the hardest hit industries has been commercial aviation, which is continuing to feel the effects in terms of higher costs and loss of passengers. Nowhere has the decline in commercial aviation been felt more than in small and rural communities.

All across America, small communities already face growing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently depends on the quality of their airports and the

availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, airports often provide the critical link to the national and international transportation system.

Ensuring small communities have the resources they need to preserve this vital airport infrastructure in rural areas is the purpose of our bill.

Under current formulae for distributing Federal funds, every airport that has more than 10,000 annual passenger boardings is guaranteed an entitlement grant from the FAA's AIP of at least $1 million per year. These are called ``primary'' airports. Airports with less than 10,000 annual boardings receive $150,000. Unfortunately, there are a handful of primary airports that have had their annual boardings drop below 10,000 as a result of the effects of 9/11. One of these airports is the Roswell International Air Center in my State of New Mexico.

For the passed two years, Congress has permitted these so called ``virtual primary'' airports to retain their full $1 million entitlement, even though their annual boardings had dropped below the 10,000 threshold as a direct result of 9/11. This two-year waiver was included in section 146 of the Vision 100 aviation reauthorization act. (P.L. 108-176).

Unfortunately, based on preliminary boarding data for 2004, there are still about 50 primary airports that have not yet regained their previous boarding levels. As a result, these airports will face a cut in their annual entitlement in FY2006 from $1 million to $150,000.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of these likely virtual primary airports for fiscal year 2006 be printed in the Record.

Likely Virtual Primary Airports for FY2006

Alaska--Fort Yukon, Gustavus, Haines, Iliamna, Kodiak,

Metlakatla, Skagway, Merrill Field* and Manokotak*.

California--Imperial, Santa Rosa, Visalia.

Connecticut--Groton-New London.

Florida--Naples.

Georgia--Athens.

Iowa--Burlington, Fort Dodge.

Illinois--Belleville, Quincy.

Indiana--Lafayette.

Kansas--Garden City, Salina.

Kentucky--Owensboro.

Maine--Rockland*.

Massachusetts--Worcester.

Michigan--Alpena, Escanaba.

Minnesota--Grand Rapids, Hibbing.

Montana--Sidney-Richland*.

North Carolina--Hickory, Pinehurst/Southern Pines.

Nebraska--Grand Island, Kearney, Scottsbluff.

New Hampshire--Lebanon.

New Mexico--Roswell.

Ohio--Youngstown/Warren.

Oregon--Pendleton.

Pennsylvania--Altoona, Bradford, Brookville, Lancaster, and

Reading*.

Rhode Island--Block Island, Westerly.

Tennessee--Jackson.

Utah--Cedar City.

Virginia--Weyers Cave.

Washington--Anacortes, Moses Lake, and Port Angeles*.

West Virginia--Clarksburg*.

Wyoming--Laramie.

*These primary airports where above 10,000 boardings in

CY2003 but could lose their $1 million AIP entitlement based

on the preliminary CY2004 enplanements.

List compiled from preliminary FAA data.

The good news is a number of airports that were virtual primary airports in fiscal year 2005 have seen their annual boardings increase back above 10,000 per year. However, for this handful of airports that were still below 10,000 boardings in 2004, I believe it is appropriate that they have another year to regain their status as primary airports and not suffer the loss of 85 percent of their fiscal year 2006 annual entitlement grant for airport improvement projects.

Thus, our bill provides a simple one year extension of the existing law to preserve the airports' current level of federal funding and give these mostly rural communities a little breathing room while the airline industry recovers from the effects of 9/11.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter and resolution from the City of Roswell and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Specter to introduce legislation that is important to a number of rural communities located in over half of the States. Our legislation will ensure that over 50 mostly rural airports will not see an 85 percent reduction in their annual grant from the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program.

I think all Senators are well aware of the wide-ranging impact the tragic events of September 11, 2001, have had throughout our economy. One of the hardest hit industries has been commercial aviation, which is continuing to feel the effects in terms of higher costs and loss of passengers. Nowhere has the decline in commercial aviation been felt more than in small and rural communities.

All across America, small communities already face growing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently depends on the quality of their airports and the

availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, airports often provide the critical link to the national and international transportation system.

Ensuring small communities have the resources they need to preserve this vital airport infrastructure in rural areas is the purpose of our bill.

Under current formulae for distributing Federal funds, every airport that has more than 10,000 annual passenger boardings is guaranteed an entitlement grant from the FAA's AIP of at least $1 million per year. These are called ``primary'' airports. Airports with less than 10,000 annual boardings receive $150,000. Unfortunately, there are a handful of primary airports that have had their annual boardings drop below 10,000 as a result of the effects of 9/11. One of these airports is the Roswell International Air Center in my State of New Mexico.

For the passed two years, Congress has permitted these so called ``virtual primary'' airports to retain their full $1 million entitlement, even though their annual boardings had dropped below the 10,000 threshold as a direct result of 9/11. This two-year waiver was included in section 146 of the Vision 100 aviation reauthorization act. (P.L. 108-176).

Unfortunately, based on preliminary boarding data for 2004, there are still about 50 primary airports that have not yet regained their previous boarding levels. As a result, these airports will face a cut in their annual entitlement in FY2006 from $1 million to $150,000.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of these likely virtual primary airports for fiscal year 2006 be printed in the Record.

Likely Virtual Primary Airports for FY2006

Alaska--Fort Yukon, Gustavus, Haines, Iliamna, Kodiak,

Metlakatla, Skagway, Merrill Field* and Manokotak*.

California--Imperial, Santa Rosa, Visalia.

Connecticut--Groton-New London.

Florida--Naples.

Georgia--Athens.

Iowa--Burlington, Fort Dodge.

Illinois--Belleville, Quincy.

Indiana--Lafayette.

Kansas--Garden City, Salina.

Kentucky--Owensboro.

Maine--Rockland*.

Massachusetts--Worcester.

Michigan--Alpena, Escanaba.

Minnesota--Grand Rapids, Hibbing.

Montana--Sidney-Richland*.

North Carolina--Hickory, Pinehurst/Southern Pines.

Nebraska--Grand Island, Kearney, Scottsbluff.

New Hampshire--Lebanon.

New Mexico--Roswell.

Ohio--Youngstown/Warren.

Oregon--Pendleton.

Pennsylvania--Altoona, Bradford, Brookville, Lancaster, and

Reading*.

Rhode Island--Block Island, Westerly.

Tennessee--Jackson.

Utah--Cedar City.

Virginia--Weyers Cave.

Washington--Anacortes, Moses Lake, and Port Angeles*.

West Virginia--Clarksburg*.

Wyoming--Laramie.

*These primary airports where above 10,000 boardings in

CY2003 but could lose their $1 million AIP entitlement based

on the preliminary CY2004 enplanements.

List compiled from preliminary FAA data.

The good news is a number of airports that were virtual primary airports in fiscal year 2005 have seen their annual boardings increase back above 10,000 per year. However, for this handful of airports that were still below 10,000 boardings in 2004, I believe it is appropriate that they have another year to regain their status as primary airports and not suffer the loss of 85 percent of their fiscal year 2006 annual entitlement grant for airport improvement projects.

Thus, our bill provides a simple one year extension of the existing law to preserve the airports' current level of federal funding and give these mostly rural communities a little breathing room while the airline industry recovers from the effects of 9/11.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter and resolution from the City of Roswell and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici in introducing the Pueblo de San Ildefonso Claims Settlement Act. This claim, the last one pending before the Indian Claims Commission, has gone unresolved for over 50 years and it is certainly long past time to bring an end to this dispute. I'd particularly like to commend the Pueblo de San Ildefonso for their diligent work on this settlement. It is testament to the Pueblo's fortitude and open-minded approach to this issue that they have been able find consensus with the many parties to this settlement and produce this compromise legislation.

As with any settlement of a lawsuit, it's unlikely that everyone will be completely happy with the terms of the deal but I am pleased to note that all of the local governments, tribal and municipal, have expressed their support. I hope that the introduction of this bill begins a productive process in the Indian Affairs Committee and, once the final product is signed into law, with the public that will definitively settle the issues of land ownership in this area and allow all of the local communities to move forward cooperatively.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici in introducing the Pueblo de San Ildefonso Claims Settlement Act. This claim, the last one pending before the Indian Claims Commission, has gone unresolved for over 50 years and it is certainly long past time to bring an end to this dispute. I'd particularly like to commend the Pueblo de San Ildefonso for their diligent work on this settlement. It is testament to the Pueblo's fortitude and open-minded approach to this issue that they have been able find consensus with the many parties to this settlement and produce this compromise legislation.

As with any settlement of a lawsuit, it's unlikely that everyone will be completely happy with the terms of the deal but I am pleased to note that all of the local governments, tribal and municipal, have expressed their support. I hope that the introduction of this bill begins a productive process in the Indian Affairs Committee and, once the final product is signed into law, with the public that will definitively settle the issues of land ownership in this area and allow all of the local communities to move forward cooperatively.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Po'pay, a man who through his life and philosophy inspired New Mexicans to unite and share their experiences of life, happiness, and customs, with a marble statue sculpted by Cliff Fragua of Jemez Pueblo. It will be the one- hundredth statue to be added to the National Statuary Hall collection. The statue of this remarkable leader of the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, is a gift from the State of New Mexico and was unveiled in the United States Capitol Rotunda today.

Po'pay was born in Ohkay Owingeh, San Juan Pueblo, in 1630. He was a deeply humble man, with deep respect for his Pueblo's culture, language, traditions, and customs, and a dedication to passing these things on to future generations.

During the seventeenth century the Pueblo way of life was seriously threatened. Some did not want the Pueblo people to practice their language, culture, or traditions, depriving them of their very core. Po'pay successfully united the separate Pueblo nations. This group of some 150 Pueblo leaders united against those who sought to destroy their way of life and prevailed. Po'pay led this great revolt and the fight for respect the Pueblo people deserved.

Through his devotion and commitment to the preservation of Pueblo culture, Po'pay played an irreplaceable role in helping to shape our Nation's future. By championing the customs and traditional ways of his ancestors, he strengthened and preserved the Pueblo heritage for future generations, bridging the rich Pueblo and Spanish cultures of the Southwest. His dedication to this cause in response to the challenges the Pueblo community faced is a testament to the spirit of New Mexico.

This statue will forever be a reminder of his leadership and courage in keeping the Pueblo culture alive. The statue of Po'pay will join the figure of the late Senator Dennis Chavez that stands proudly outside the doors of the old Senate Chambers. It is a privilege for New Mexico to be represented by two men with such vision, leadership, and courage.

The decision to honor Po'pay was brought to the foreground during the tercentennial commemoration of the Pueblo Revolt by a unified group of Pueblo leaders. Thanks to their leadership, in November of 1996 the tribal council of Ohkay Owingeh, San Juan Pueblo, made the nomination official with a resolution. In 1997, State Senator Manny Aragon and Representative Nick Salazar introduced Senate Bill 404, which was passed and signed by Governor Gary Johnson on April 10. The nine member Statuary Hall Commission was formed and the fundraising began. Cliff Fragua of Jemez Pueblo was selected to create the statue, and by May of 2005 the block of Tennessee Marble took the form of Po'pay. Thanks to the vision of many Pueblo leaders, the New Mexico Statuary Hall Commission and Foundation, and New Mexico's citizens, Po'pay shall forever be honored in the halls of the United Stated Capitol.

We honor and respect Po'pay's accomplishments as the man who made it possible for Pueblo culture to thrive and sustain itself. Po'pay's contributions made New Mexico what it is today, a multicultural State, rich in culture and spirit.

Mr. President, I rise today to state my intention to support the nomination of John G. Roberts to be the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He has the experience, judicial temperament, and qualifications necessary to be Chief Justice, and his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee has given me reason to believe he is not an ideologue and that he will make decisions based on sound legal reasoning that is within the mainstream of judicial thought in this country. I do not believe that he has an agenda to reverse our Nation's historic commitment to civil rights, and I take him at his word when he says that he will take each case on its facts and apply the law regardless of his personal views. It is for these reasons that I intend to vote in favor of Judge Roberts' nomination.

Many people have raised legitimate concerns about views that Judge Roberts expressed in the past. As a 26-year-old staff attorney in the Reagan White House Counsel's Office, Roberts wrote a series of memos that raised concerns about his commitment to civil rights. At his confirmation hearing he said that he no longer held certain views and it was important to distinguish between his personal views and those of an advocate seeking to uphold the policies of his client.

Due to the limitations the Senate faced in obtaining documents, in making my decision I had to primarily rely on Judge Roberts' testimony before the Judiciary Committee. The assurances he provided in his testimony give me what I believe is a reasonable expectation regarding how he will approach cases if placed on the Court. I would like to take a moment to briefly discuss some of these expectations that I believe are reasonably based on what he said at that set of hearings.

First, Judge Roberts repeatedly stressed that he respects the rule of law and recognizes the importance of considering stare decisis in the decision making process. I agree that looking to settled precedent should always be the starting point in this process. It is essential that the decisions of the Supreme Court provide reliable guidance to the American people, Congress, and the executive branch, and I believe that the whimsical reinterpretation of settled law is not in the best interest of our Nation. Based on the answers that

Judge Roberts gave, I believe it unlikely that Judge Roberts will chart a new right-wing course for the Court based on his own personal views. His answers indicate that he will apply the law in a fairminded way and that he will afford longstanding precedent adequate deference.

Second, when asked about whether the Constitution contains a right to privacy, which provides the legal basis for a woman's right to choose and the use of birth control, Judge Roberts made clear that he believed that it did. He stated clearly that the right to privacy was protected by the ``liberty'' due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. More importantly, Judge Roberts asserted that the right to privacy conferred under the Constitution was a substantive and not merely a procedural right. This view is in stark contrast to that of Justice Scalia, who has argued for a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and believes the right to privacy is an artificial construct that lacks any foundation in the Constitution.

Third, Judge Roberts also distinguished his views from those who see Constitution as a static document and only recognize recourse to the ``original'' intent when interpreting it. I believe strongly that the Constitution was intended to be a living document, and that we must have a constitution that is able to address the challenges and adversities that we face as a modern society. When our country was founded we were living in very different times, and it is important that our Constitution reflect the new world we are living in. In his testimony, Roberts noted that although it was impermissible to contradict the plain text of the Constitution, where the Constitution uses general terms, such as ``liberty'' or ``equal protection,'' it is acceptable to interpret the text in light of today's notions of liberty and equal justice, not just those concepts as they were contemplated in 1787.

Fourth, with regard to recent Supreme Court decisions that have restricted the ability of Congress to enact certain laws pursuant to the commerce clause, Roberts' answers indicated a willingness to interpret these cases in the context of the overwhelming jurisprudence supporting Congressional authority in this area. Further restrictions on the power of Congress to legislate under the commerce clause could have profound implications concerning the ability of Congress to pass laws with respect to the environment, civil rights, and many of the basic advancements we made during the Warren court.

In addition, Judge Roberts also specifically rejected the tenets of the Supreme Courts' 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, which drastically curtailed the ability of Congress to pass critical workers' rights legislation, such as wage and child labor laws. Of course this decision has since been overruled, but some jurists nominated by President Bush, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, have advocated that the decision was correctly decided.

There is one other issue that I would like to discuss. Some of the most challenging issues that the Supreme Court will likely face over the next decade will involve how we balance civil liberties with the need to confront terrorism. The President has asserted tremendous authority in this area, including the right to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen that he unilaterally deems an ``enemy combatant.'' The Court will have to decide issues involving the detention of suspected terrorists, due process rights, constraints regarding the use of torture, and many other questions that will define our commitment to longstanding principles of civil rights and civil liberties. During the hearings, Judge Roberts rejected the Supreme Courts' decision in Korematsu, which upheld the mass detainment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Although this decision is a sad part of our history, in a technical sense it is still legally binding. Judge Roberts' complete rejection of this approach gives me hope that he understands that governmental powers are not without limit in times of war.

When asked whether he considers himself in the mold of Justices Scalia or Thomas, Judge Roberts stated clearly that he would be his own man. As I have stated, I expect that Judge Roberts will afford adequate deference to Congress, will follow longstanding precedent, and will apply the law in a fair and straightforward way. It is my hope that Judge Roberts will uphold these expectations.

Team Nutrition

Mr. President, I now speak on a different issue. This is in relation to an amendment I have filed on the current pending legislation, the Agriculture appropriations bill. I will not offer that amendment at this point because we are still in discussions with the bill's manager and the ranking Democrat and their staffs to see if we can find an appropriate offset for this amendment. It is one I offer with Senator Lugar as my cosponsor. I believe it is a very important amendment. It is an amendment to provide $10 million in additional funding to expand and develop new team nutrition programs across the country.

Senator Lugar and I offer this amendment in light of the growing and profound evidence that our Nation must confront what both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services refer to as our ``growing epidemic of childhood obesity.''

As Eric Bost, the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, testified before Congress in April of this year:

Nearly 365,000 deaths a year are related to poor diet and

physical inactivity; poor diet and inactivity are the second

leading cause of preventable death after smoking.

He added:

In the past 20 years the percentage of children who are

overweight has doubled and the percentage of adolescents who

are overweight has more than tripled. If we do not stem this

tide, this may be the first generation of children who will

not have a longer life expectancy than their parents.

According to a 2005 Institute of Medicine report, there are approximately 9 million children nationwide over the age of 6 who are considered obese, resulting in increases in children being diagnosed with type II diabetes and hypertension. In addition to the negative effects on the health and well-being of these children, the rise in childhood obesity has a profound economic cost for our country.

Between 1979 and 1999, obesity-associated hospital costs for children between the ages of 6 and 17 more than tripled, according to a study published in Children Pediatrics. To combat this, the administration has launched an initiative it refers to as part of its larger healthier U.S. initiative. It is called the Healthier U.S. School Challenge, which is focused on helping children live longer, better, and healthier lives.

Secretary Ann Veneman and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in July of this year:

The school challenge builds upon the Team Nutrition Program

and recognizes schools that achieve nutrition and physical

activity standards.

The School Challenge and Team Nutrition requires schools to do essentially five things: One, to serve national school lunch meals that are verified to meet nutrition standards; second, to offer nutrition education, which is the purpose of the amendment Senator Lugar and I are offering; third, to maintain national school lunch participation above certain levels; fourth, to offer physical activity for students in those schools; and fifth, to ensure that all foods offered through the school meet healthy standards as reflected in the dietary guidelines for Americans.

Although there are 28,000 schools nationwide that are participating as of October of last year as Team Nutrition schools, that is far from adequate. There are way too many schools that are not participating that should be participating. In fact, these programs are chronically underfunded. Team nutrition has once again been proposed by the administration, and in the current spending bill before the Senate the proposed funding is $10 million. This is equivalent to 21 cents per year for every child in public school in this country. There is nobody who could credibly argue that 21 cents per child per year is an adequate funding level for nutrition education. Unfortunately, the $10 million that has been proposed this year for funding in this program is what was proposed last year. It is what was proposed the year before. Essentially, we are on auto pilot in the Department of Agriculture with regard to this program. There is no effort to

move ahead and deal with the very real, new challenges we have in trying to teach nutrition to the young people of this country.

Furthermore, there is not a single set of funding in over half of the States in the country as Team Nutrition dollars are only going to 21 States. Unfortunately, New Mexico is one of those States and is not able to participate in Team Nutrition at any level because the funding is so inadequate.

Today, one in seven young people is obese in this country; one in three is overweight. Obese children are twice as likely as nonobese children to become obese adults. Only 2 percent of children consume a diet that meets the five main recommendations of a healthy diet from the food guide pyramid that is published by the Secretary of Agriculture, and three out of four children in the United States consume more saturated fat than is recommended in the dietary guidelines for Americans published by the Secretary of Agriculture.

We need to support any effort we can to curb this growing obesity problem. We need to support making our children healthier today by teaching them and the adults in their lives about the importance of healthy eating habits and physical activity.

I urge the support of my amendment and Senator Lugar's amendment. As I indicated, we will not call it for consideration or a vote at this time, but hope we are able to find an appropriate offset and get agreement to add this amendment to the legislation.

I would argue, I think without any reservation, that this is a small investment. It is a first step, but it is an important step we should be making as a Nation to confront the profound and growing problem many children in our society face.

I yield the floor.