Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeff Smith, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the rest of the afternoon.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This legislation is critical if we, as a Nation, are going to continue to compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison, the Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2005. This legislation is supported by the Hispanic Education Coalition, 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 like National Council of La Raza, HACU, and MALDEF. Senators Bill Nelson and Clinton have joined in this effort as cosponsors.

According to Census Bureau data, Hispanic population in the United States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000 and continues to grow at a very brisk pace. The most recent census data puts the Hispanic population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest minority group. Estimates project that the Hispanic population will grow by 25 million between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin.

Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age, the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020, through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching working age.

Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population.

I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of the Higher Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational opportunities for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, have made significant strides in increasing the number of Hispanic students enrolling in and graduating from college. Although Hispanic- serving institutions account for only 5 percent of all institutions of higher education in the United States,

HSIs enroll over half, 51 percent, of all Hispanics pursuing higher education degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non- Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7 percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States.

We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past few years, Hispanic students are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges, and are much less likely to finish college than their non- Hispanic peers. In 2001, only slightly more than 1 in 10 Hispanics ages 25 years and over had received a bachelor's degree or higher.

According to the Department of Education, in 2000, Hispanics only earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded, 4 percent of all master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all doctorates. But the pace of bachelor's degrees or higher earned by Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, according to the Department of Education. Therefore, we must keep pace. We must increase the capacity of our institutions of higher education to serve the increasing number of Hispanic students.

The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate degree opportunities at HSIs, and by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements HSIs must contend with.

Current law only provides support for 2-year and 4-year Hispanic Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education, and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate program for HSIs.

In addition, current law places a number of unnecessary, burdensome administrative and regulatory barriers at the gates of our HSIs. If our goal is to increase educational opportunities for all students, and particularly Hispanic students, then we must eliminate bureaucratic barriers that impede access.

Accordingly, this legislation removes a 2-year period in which HSIs must wait before becoming eligible to apply for another grant under title V of the Higher Education Act. This 2-year wait out period obstructs the efforts of many HSIs to implement continuing programs and conduct long range planning. As a result, many HSIs cannot maintain continuity in educational programming. We should be creating opportunities to improve the quality of education, and eliminating this wait-out period is a step in the right direction.

In addition, this bill eliminates another onerous requirement on HSIs that other minority-serving institutions are not required to follow. Currently, in order to be eligible as an HSI, the institution must serve ``needy students''--meaning at least 50 percent of the degree students are receiving Federal need-based assistance or the institution's percentage of Pell Grant recipients exceeds the median percentage for similar institutions receiving Pell Grants. Also, to be eligible, 25 percent of the full time, undergraduate population must be Hispanic. However, unlike other grant programs in the Higher Education Act, HSIs must also show that 50 percent of the Hispanic population is low income.

This last requirement is particularly burdensome, as it is duplicative and unfair, and, in many cases, prevents HSIs from providing vital educational services to Hispanic students. This provision requires the institutions to collect information and data that is not readily available or easily acquirable. It requires the schools to come up with data beyond what is required for financial aid purposes. Further, there is no other requirement in Federal law for institutions to collect this type of data. As a result, many institutions with large Hispanic student populations must divert critical resources and staff to acquire this information, or they simply do not qualify as an HSI.

To ensure that the institution continues to serve low-income students, the Next Generation HSI Act maintains the requirement that the institution serve needy students, but eliminates the additional requirement that the school demonstrate that 50 percent of its Hispanic students are low-income. The elimination of this requirement will ease the administrative burdens placed on our schools, and further our goals of increasing access and improving quality.

Finally, this bill facilitates the transition of Hispanic students from 2-year colleges to 4-year colleges. As I noted earlier, Hispanics are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges as compared to their non-Hispanic peers. To encourage and support these students' continued education, this legislation adds as an authorized activity programs that assist a student's transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution.

Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16 million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education with the resources and flexibility they need to build capacity and serve the increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for the next generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive workforce and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This legislation is critical if we, as a Nation, are going to continue to compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison, the Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2005. This legislation is supported by the Hispanic Education Coalition, 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 like National Council of La Raza, HACU, and MALDEF. Senators Bill Nelson and Clinton have joined in this effort as cosponsors.

According to Census Bureau data, Hispanic population in the United States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000 and continues to grow at a very brisk pace. The most recent census data puts the Hispanic population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest minority group. Estimates project that the Hispanic population will grow by 25 million between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin.

Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age, the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020, through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching working age.

Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population.

I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of the Higher Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational opportunities for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, have made significant strides in increasing the number of Hispanic students enrolling in and graduating from college. Although Hispanic- serving institutions account for only 5 percent of all institutions of higher education in the United States,

HSIs enroll over half, 51 percent, of all Hispanics pursuing higher education degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non- Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7 percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States.

We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past few years, Hispanic students are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges, and are much less likely to finish college than their non- Hispanic peers. In 2001, only slightly more than 1 in 10 Hispanics ages 25 years and over had received a bachelor's degree or higher.

According to the Department of Education, in 2000, Hispanics only earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded, 4 percent of all master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all doctorates. But the pace of bachelor's degrees or higher earned by Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, according to the Department of Education. Therefore, we must keep pace. We must increase the capacity of our institutions of higher education to serve the increasing number of Hispanic students.

The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate degree opportunities at HSIs, and by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements HSIs must contend with.

Current law only provides support for 2-year and 4-year Hispanic Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education, and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate program for HSIs.

In addition, current law places a number of unnecessary, burdensome administrative and regulatory barriers at the gates of our HSIs. If our goal is to increase educational opportunities for all students, and particularly Hispanic students, then we must eliminate bureaucratic barriers that impede access.

Accordingly, this legislation removes a 2-year period in which HSIs must wait before becoming eligible to apply for another grant under title V of the Higher Education Act. This 2-year wait out period obstructs the efforts of many HSIs to implement continuing programs and conduct long range planning. As a result, many HSIs cannot maintain continuity in educational programming. We should be creating opportunities to improve the quality of education, and eliminating this wait-out period is a step in the right direction.

In addition, this bill eliminates another onerous requirement on HSIs that other minority-serving institutions are not required to follow. Currently, in order to be eligible as an HSI, the institution must serve ``needy students''--meaning at least 50 percent of the degree students are receiving Federal need-based assistance or the institution's percentage of Pell Grant recipients exceeds the median percentage for similar institutions receiving Pell Grants. Also, to be eligible, 25 percent of the full time, undergraduate population must be Hispanic. However, unlike other grant programs in the Higher Education Act, HSIs must also show that 50 percent of the Hispanic population is low income.

This last requirement is particularly burdensome, as it is duplicative and unfair, and, in many cases, prevents HSIs from providing vital educational services to Hispanic students. This provision requires the institutions to collect information and data that is not readily available or easily acquirable. It requires the schools to come up with data beyond what is required for financial aid purposes. Further, there is no other requirement in Federal law for institutions to collect this type of data. As a result, many institutions with large Hispanic student populations must divert critical resources and staff to acquire this information, or they simply do not qualify as an HSI.

To ensure that the institution continues to serve low-income students, the Next Generation HSI Act maintains the requirement that the institution serve needy students, but eliminates the additional requirement that the school demonstrate that 50 percent of its Hispanic students are low-income. The elimination of this requirement will ease the administrative burdens placed on our schools, and further our goals of increasing access and improving quality.

Finally, this bill facilitates the transition of Hispanic students from 2-year colleges to 4-year colleges. As I noted earlier, Hispanics are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges as compared to their non-Hispanic peers. To encourage and support these students' continued education, this legislation adds as an authorized activity programs that assist a student's transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution.

Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16 million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education with the resources and flexibility they need to build capacity and serve the increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for the next generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive workforce and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for Senator Feinstein's amendment. The amendment will provide courts with guidance as to how to manage large multistate class actions in Federal court. This amendment addresses a flaw in the underlying legislation that, if left uncorrected, could leave many properly filed multistate consumer class actions without a forum in which those cases could be heard.

I had prepared an amendment that would have reaffirmed the discretionary authority of a judge to select the law of one State, as is currently permissible under the Constitution, and reaffirm the right of the judge to do that instead of denying certification for large multistate consumer class actions. There were some concerns raised by my colleagues, and I have agreed to withhold that amendment and lend my support to the Feinstein compromise approach. I believe the Feinstein compromise will accomplish what I intended to address in my amendment; that is, to make sure injured consumers have their day in court.

By amending the diversity jurisdiction rules, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 will give almost exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal courts to hear class action cases. The proponents of the legislation argue that such changes are necessary due to abuses that are occurring in a handful of State courts. Although the bill makes changes to other aspects of class action litigation, such as coupon settlements, this procedural removal of cases from State court to Federal court should be the focus of our scrutiny. This goes to the core of the 10th amendment of the Constitution that preserves the right of a State to protect its citizens. While this shift may be necessary in certain cases, it should not be taken lightly, as we will be taking away the ability of States to hear cases involving injuries to their citizens that are in violation of the State law. This is clearly a fundamental change in jurisprudence.

Class action suits have long provided a means for individuals to band together to seek a remedy when they have collectively been damaged in a manner that is significant but would not be economical to advance on their own. These actions empower those citizens who would be left without redress, absent the collective effort of others. This system has provided a necessary balance to a system weighted toward those with the means to defend their actions in court. The suits also take much of the pressure off of a State attorney general. The State attorneys general are not able to investigate and seek remedies for all the citizens who have been damaged or hurt by business in and outside of a State. Class actions reduce the need for overly burdensome regulations and laws that would be necessary if it were to be forced to limit the discretion given to businesses to operate in a responsible manner.

Finally, class action litigation protects our citizens from future injuries by putting an end to certain acts of corporate malfeasance and negligence. Although there have been abuses on occasion, the benefits of class action litigation should be evident. Under current law, an individual has the right to participate in a class when a number of people have been injured in a similar fashion by the same defendant. Once the class has been created, if the injury is based on a violation of State law--and many are, as there are really no general consumer protection laws--the class representative generally has the option of filing either in State court or Federal court. In this respect, a class action is similar to any action that is filed in court; that is, the plaintiff is the master of his or her claims.

The proponents of this legislation have argued that the basic goal of the legislation is to move these large class actions to Federal court. For instance, Stanton D. Anderson, executive vice president and chief legal counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer, dated February 27, 2004, that:

[t]he Class Action Fairness Act would simply allow federal

courts to more easily hear large, national class action

lawsuits affecting consumers all over the country.

Similarly, in testimony before the Judiciary Committee on July 31, 2002, Walter Dellinger stated:

[t]he principal purpose and effect of the [class action]

bill is undeniably modest: it merely adjusts the rules of

diversity jurisdiction so that certain large multi-party

cases--those with true nationwide compass, affecting many or

even all states at once--will be litigated in the federal

courts rather than in the courts of just one state (or

county) or another.

Suffice it to say, the new Federal diversity statute for purposes of class action will accomplish this as very few, if any, cases will meet the standards necessary to remain in State court. The operative question is, then, What will happen to these cases once they are in the Federal court system? If we look at the past decade or so, we note an interesting pattern. Although some State courts have certified these large multistate class actions, the Federal courts have not. In fact, six U.S. circuit courts of appeal--the Third Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit--and at least 26 Federal district courts have denied class certification in multistate consumer class actions. Except for a 1986 Third Circuit decision which has since been narrowed to only its facts, no U.S. circuit court of appeals has granted class certification in such a case. At the same time, at least seven different States have certified large multistate consumer class actions.

Under rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action ``may be maintained as a class action if the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.''

Because class action lawsuits involving fraud and deceptive sales practices or sales of defective products allege violations of State consumer protection statutes or common law, there is always a possibility that the laws to be applied will be different. If a court determines that they must apply the laws of different States to different members of a class action, they often find that questions of law common to the members of a class do not predominate. That renders the adjudication of the case as a class action unmanageable, and they deny class certification. This denial is effectively the end of the action. It is not hard to understand why State courts are the forum of choice for these large class actions.

The proponents of this legislation are aware that Federal courts do not certify these large class actions. In fact, in most cases, they argue this very point in court.

For example, in re Simon, the second litigation, which was before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Chamber of Commerce opined:

. . . it is nearly a truism that nationwide class actions

in which the claims are subject to varying State laws cannot

be certified because they are simply unmanageable.

Obviously, these arguments have been persuasive before the Federal courts. In re the Ford Motor Company ignition switch products liability litigation that was in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, that court stated:

[P]laintiffs' first cause of action contends that Ford

breached an implied warranty of merchantability under each of

the many States' laws that govern this action. Variations

among these States' laws, however, preclude classwide

adjudication of plaintiffs' claims.

This case involved a defective ignition switch that caused it to fail. It has been claimed that this failure may have resulted in as many as 11 deaths and 31 injuries, not to mention almost a billion dollars spent by consumers to replace the defective product. The case was ultimately settled, but it was only settled after a State court in California agreed to certify a class.

Senator Feinstein's amendment makes sure that by moving these cases to Federal court, we are not pushing them into a forum that will fail to hear those cases because too many State laws apply.

The amendment requires the parties to submit plans as to how the case could be managed by dividing it into subclasses based on the similarity of the State laws that would need to be applied. The judge would then have the discretion to divide the class into subclasses or use some other manner that ensures that the plaintiffs' State laws are applied.

Under the Feinstein amendment, the Federal court is not required to divide the class into subclasses; it is simply discretionary. It can still follow the State's choice of law rules, or use any other means permissible to ensure that the plaintiffs' State laws are applied to the extent practicable.

If we are going to take away the right of State judges to hear a class action, it is incumbent upon us to make sure the Federal judge is not able to not certify the class because too many State laws would apply. That would be an unfair result.

I have heard many Members argue that a deal is a deal; therefore, Members who support the bill, including those who were able to get changes made to the bill before it was brought to the floor, should be precluded from supporting any amendment, including this amendment. I remind my colleagues that although this legislation has been around for years, there has not been a single amendment to improve this legislation that has been voted on on the floor of the Senate prior to this week.

The stated intention of the proponents of this bill is to avoid conference with the House and to have that Chamber pass the bill exactly the way it passes the Senate. While they argue this is a reason to not support

amendments, I would argue the opposite. Because we know this is the only opportunity for any Member of Congress to amend this legislation, it is imperative that we remain openminded to the few amendments that are going to be offered and debated on the bill.

In the 22 years I have been in the Senate, I do not recall a single piece of legislation that could not have benefited from input from all interested Members of the Senate. The Founding Fathers of our country created a legislative branch that is intentionally deliberative and subject to the repetitive processes of debate and amendment.

I remind my colleagues of the language included in last year's nonamendable Omnibus appropriations bill that would have allowed staff from the appropriations committees to review taxpayers' tax return information. That one provision almost derailed the entire spending bill for our country. Clearly, if Members had been presented with an opportunity to review the bill on the floor, to amend that bill, we could have avoided that problem.

As elected officials, we have a responsibility to the public to do our best to improve legislation before it becomes law, which I believe argues for Members to consider each amendment with an open mind. If my colleagues disagree with this amendment, then I encourage them to vote against it. However, if they agree with me that this catch-22, which is in the current bill, should be corrected, then I hope they will vote for this Feinstein amendment, regardless of whether you previously stated support for the overall bill.

I would like to acknowledge and thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, for his support of my amendment and what I understand to be his support of the Feinstein amendment. No one could debate the chairman's dedication to getting this bill passed. Yet he agrees that the legislation would be improved by correcting the problem we have identified.

Substantively, one of the arguments that was raised by proponents of the bill is that courts have been certifying classes in these large multistate class actions, even though all of the circuits I mentioned before in numerous district courts have denied certification on the ground that the case is unmanageable. The cases enlisted by proponents of the bill in defense of their claim that cases have been certified are cases involving a Federal question or certifications of a class for purposes of settlement. These types of certifications are entirely different than the cases we are referring to; that is, cases involving violations of State law for purposes of a trial. The only way these cases are going to get to the settlement phase is if there is the possibility that a case could be taken to trial, if necessary. It is an important distinction.

Again, I point to this in re Simon II litigation where the Chamber of Commerce argued against certification, stating that it is nearly a truism that nationwide class actions in which the claims are subject to varying State laws cannot be certified because they are simply unmanageable.

As I mentioned before, this is not just an abstract situation. There are over 300,000 homeowners in Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas who have been compensated for defective siding they had purchased for their houses. When this case was brought before the Federal court, it was not certified, in part because the court could not ``imagine managing a trial under the law of 51 jurisdictions on the defectiveness of masonite siding.'' Because an Alabama State court agreed to certify the case for trial, the case was settled, and these homeowners were compensated for their damages.

Proponents of the legislation also argue that a class denied certification would be free to refile its cases in either State or Federal court. Based on the underlying legislation, the State court cases, almost without exception, would be removed again to the Federal court, and once in Federal court, the case would be sent to the same Federal court that failed to certify the class in the first place due to the procedure for consolidation and the operation of the multidistrict litigation panel.

This MDL, multidistrict litigation panel, streamlines large, unwieldy multidistrict litigation involving the same parties and the same facts when those cases are filed in Federal courts. This panel of seven judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court determines which cases pending in Federal court should be transferred to a single district court for purposes of hearing and ruling on pretrial matters, including the matter of class certification.

The proceedings can be initiated by the MDL panel or by any party involved in one of the actions pending in a district court. All cases of a similar nature in Federal court, including those filed after the consolidation, are affected and subject to being transferred. Once a transferee court has been selected, it rules on all pretrial motions, including class certification, but will send the cases back to the transferor courts for trial, assuming that the case has not settled or been dismissed. All future cases involving similar claims and similar parties are automatically sent back to the same transferee court for any future actions.

Class actions by their very nature are large cases and they are affected by the ability of the MDL panel to consolidate, as there are generally different cases pending in district courts throughout the country. Under current law, a class based on claims of State law violations can avoid this consolidation by remaining in State court, but this will no longer be the case after this bill becomes law. Instead, plaintiffs who go through the consolidation process and are not certified will not refile these cases since they would ultimately be back before the same judge who failed to certify the class in the first place.

Finally, the proponents of the bill have argued that taking away the right of a judge to deny certification based on too many States' laws is a violation of due process and is anticonsumer. It seems implausible to me that an amendment that would ameliorate the impact of denying States the right to hear certain cases could be considered either a violation of due process or anticonsumer. I believe the amendment of the Senator from California is fair. It is a reasonable approach to dealing with a serious problem created in the underlying legislation.

As Chairman Specter stated earlier in the week, this legislation is intended to change the procedure for class actions and not the substantive law. Without Senator Feinstein's amendment this bill could effectively limit the substantive rights of citizens to obtain a remedy for modest damages when a defendant has injured many in a similar fashion. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Feinstein amendment.

I have a letter I received from Professor Arthur Miller at the Harvard Law School. He has been very helpful to me and to other Senators in trying to help us understand the seriousness of the issue and the importance of remedying this through proposals such as the Feinstein amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Senator Smith and I have worked together successfully on several issues within the last year to defend and improve our Nation's health care safety, including on an amendment to the Medicare prescription drug bill addressing community health center payments within Medicare that passed by a vote of 94-1. However, none of these initiatives have been more important than the legislation that we are introducing together today, along with a list of 13 other senators--7 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 1 Independent, 7 of which serve on the Senate Finance Committee--to create a Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid.

Joining Senator Smith and I as original cosponsors are: Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Santorum, Kerry, DeWine, Durbin, Chafee, Lincoln, Collins, Nelson of Nebraska, Voinovich, Corzine, and Coleman.

I will not go into the specifics of the legislation, as Senator Smith has explained how the Commission would be formed and would operate. Instead, I will take the time to explain why it is that the formation of commission is so important.

Medicaid is a critically important health care safety net program that provides health care services to over 50 million low-income children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities.

In New Mexico, Medicaid is the single largest payor for health care. All told, Medicaid covers the health care costs of more than 400,000 New Mexicans--nearly one-quarter of our State's population.

Although the least expensive to cover, those who benefit most from Medicaid are nearly 300,000 of New Mexico's children. Of the various populations covered, children represent almost two-thirds of all our State's beneficiaries, which is the highest ratio in the Nation according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

However, Medicaid is much more than just a safety net program for children from low-income families. It also serves low-income adults and pregnant women. It also serves senior citizens and people with disabilities who receive the bulk of their health care through Medicare but who still rely on Medicaid for a substantial share of their benefits and cost-sharing assistance. Medicaid also provides critically needed funding to support our Nation's safety net providers, including disproportionate share hospitals.

In the President's budget that was just released, the administration has proposed cutting Medicaid by $60 billion over the next 10 years. Secretary Leavitt recently testified in the Senate Finance Committee that he believes ``Medicaid is flawed and inefficient.''

There are others that believe Medicaid is not working and that costs are spiraling out of control and so the program needs dramatic overhaul.

In contrast. there are also those that will attest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Medicaid. I firmly believe neither point of view is correct.

First, Medicaid is far from broken. The cost per person in Medicaid rose just 4.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2004. That compares to a 12 percent rise in the annual cost of premiums in the private sector. If that is the comparison, Medicaid seems to be about the most efficient health care program around, even more so than Medicare.

The overall cost of Medicaid is going up largely, not because the program is inefficient, but because more and more people find themselves depending on this safety net program for their health care during a recession. When nearly 5 million people lost employer coverage between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid added nearly 6 million to its program. Costs rose in Medicaid precisely because it is working--and working well--as our Nation's safety net program.

Consequently, as noted previously, Medicaid now provides health care to over 50 million low-income Americans, including one-quarter of all New Mexicans.

This is precisely why I so strongly oppose block grants or any arbitrary caps on Federal spending for Medicaid. If we had caps in 2000 and Medicaid could not have responded to the economic downturn, we would have 50 million uninsured today. Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership and an arbitrary cap of the Federal share to States is nothing more than the Federal Government trying to shift all risk to States.

On the other hand, it is also not true that Medicaid is not in need of improvement. The administration is rightly concerned about certain State efforts to provide ``enhanced payments'' to institutional providers as a significant factor in driving Medicaid costs. Secretary Leavitt, in a speech to the World Health Care Congress on February 1, 2005, referred to State efforts to maximize Federal funding as ``the Seven Harmful Habits of Highly Desperate States.'' As a result, he called for ``an uncomfortable, but necessary, conversation with our funding partners, the States.''

Unfortunately, Medicaid reform driven by a budget reconciliation process is not a dialogue or conversation. It is a one-way mechanism for the Federal Government to impose its will on the States. The administration's budget calls for $60 billion in cuts to Medicaid, including $40 billion that would directly harm States.

Where is the conversation in that? In fact, the States have a fair amount of complaint with Federal cost shifting to the States. While I certainly do not speak for the National Governors' Association or National Conference of States Legislatures, some of those grievances are rather obvious and I share them.

For example, according to data from Kaiser Family Foundation, 42 percent of the costs in Medicaid are due to Medicare dual eligible beneficiaries. These dual eligibles are also a major driver of health costs in Medicare and this is a prime example of where better coordination between Medicare and Medicaid could improve both programs. States have been calling for better coordination for years to no avail.

In the Medicare prescription drug bill that was passed by the Congress in 2003, the Federal Government imposed what is referred to as a ``clawback'' mechanism which forces the States to help pay for the Federally-passed Medicare prescription drug benefit. Although States will derive a financial windfall from moving dual eligibles from Medicaid coverage to Medicare, some of the States believe the ``clawback'' will cost them more than if they continued to provide prescription drug coverage themselves.

The prescription drug bill also impacted States financially in a host of other ways that went largely unnoticed, including those that increased Medicaid costs for dual eligibles as a result of increases in the Medicare Part B deductible and increased payments to the new Medicare Advantage plans. The law also required States to help enroll low-income Medicare beneficiaries into the low-income drug benefit.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that States had $5.8 billion in added enrollment of dual eligibles in Medicaid due to what they refer to as a ``woodworking'' effect on dual eligibles trying to sign up for the low-income drug benefit discovering they are also eligible for Medicaid benefits. CBO further estimated that States had $3.1 billion in new administrative and other costs added by the prescription drug legislation.

States had no ability to ``have a conversation'' with the Federal Government about the imposition of such costs on them when the Medicare prescription1rrug drug bill was passed, but they should have and will have in our Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid.

Furthermore, due to a recent rebenchmarking done by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Affairs with respect to the calculation of per capita income in the States and the application of that data by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, many States, including New Mexico, will see a rather dramatic decline in their Federal Medicaid matching percentage. In fact, due to the rebenchmarking and other factors, 29 states will lose Medicaid funding in 2006 by an amount of in excess of $800 million. Again, this occurred with no dialogue or conversation.

Mr. President, I agree with Secretary Leavitt that there should be a conversation among all the stakeholders about the future of Medicaid and about what are the fair division of responsibilities between the Federal Government, States, local governments, providers, and the over 50 million people served by Medicaid. It is for this reason that the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid includes all of those stakeholders at the table to have a full discussion and debate about the future of Medicaid.

It is our intent that the recommendations would not be focused on cutting costs but about improving health care delivery to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. However, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, both can and should be done.

There are those that will argue that a commission may not reach a consensus to make recommendations to

improve the Medicaid program and so is not worth the effort. I would strongly disagree and point to the fact that the National Academy for State Health Policy recently convened a workgroup they called Making Medicaid Work for the 21st Century that included many of the Medicaid stakeholders and came forth with a 78-page report with numerous recommendations with respect to eligibility, benefits, and financing. According to the report entitled Improving Health and Long-Term Care Coverage for Low-Income Americans, the workgroup attempted to ``assess areas where it would be most productive to focus on improvement in the program, and to develop consensus around recommendations for reform.'' I would underscore the emphasis of the workgroup on ``improving'' Medicaid and health coverage. This should be the primary and overriding goal of the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid that we are introducing today.

Before closing, I once again thank Senator Smith, the other 12 Senate cosponsors, and the various stakeholders--State and local governments, providers, and consumers that have endorsed this legislation--in an effort, not to cut Medicaid, but to make it more efficient and effective in the delivery of care to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the Fact Sheet accompanying this legislation printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Senator Smith and I have worked together successfully on several issues within the last year to defend and improve our Nation's health care safety, including on an amendment to the Medicare prescription drug bill addressing community health center payments within Medicare that passed by a vote of 94-1. However, none of these initiatives have been more important than the legislation that we are introducing together today, along with a list of 13 other senators--7 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 1 Independent, 7 of which serve on the Senate Finance Committee--to create a Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid.

Joining Senator Smith and I as original cosponsors are: Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Santorum, Kerry, DeWine, Durbin, Chafee, Lincoln, Collins, Nelson of Nebraska, Voinovich, Corzine, and Coleman.

I will not go into the specifics of the legislation, as Senator Smith has explained how the Commission would be formed and would operate. Instead, I will take the time to explain why it is that the formation of commission is so important.

Medicaid is a critically important health care safety net program that provides health care services to over 50 million low-income children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities.

In New Mexico, Medicaid is the single largest payor for health care. All told, Medicaid covers the health care costs of more than 400,000 New Mexicans--nearly one-quarter of our State's population.

Although the least expensive to cover, those who benefit most from Medicaid are nearly 300,000 of New Mexico's children. Of the various populations covered, children represent almost two-thirds of all our State's beneficiaries, which is the highest ratio in the Nation according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

However, Medicaid is much more than just a safety net program for children from low-income families. It also serves low-income adults and pregnant women. It also serves senior citizens and people with disabilities who receive the bulk of their health care through Medicare but who still rely on Medicaid for a substantial share of their benefits and cost-sharing assistance. Medicaid also provides critically needed funding to support our Nation's safety net providers, including disproportionate share hospitals.

In the President's budget that was just released, the administration has proposed cutting Medicaid by $60 billion over the next 10 years. Secretary Leavitt recently testified in the Senate Finance Committee that he believes ``Medicaid is flawed and inefficient.''

There are others that believe Medicaid is not working and that costs are spiraling out of control and so the program needs dramatic overhaul.

In contrast. there are also those that will attest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Medicaid. I firmly believe neither point of view is correct.

First, Medicaid is far from broken. The cost per person in Medicaid rose just 4.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2004. That compares to a 12 percent rise in the annual cost of premiums in the private sector. If that is the comparison, Medicaid seems to be about the most efficient health care program around, even more so than Medicare.

The overall cost of Medicaid is going up largely, not because the program is inefficient, but because more and more people find themselves depending on this safety net program for their health care during a recession. When nearly 5 million people lost employer coverage between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid added nearly 6 million to its program. Costs rose in Medicaid precisely because it is working--and working well--as our Nation's safety net program.

Consequently, as noted previously, Medicaid now provides health care to over 50 million low-income Americans, including one-quarter of all New Mexicans.

This is precisely why I so strongly oppose block grants or any arbitrary caps on Federal spending for Medicaid. If we had caps in 2000 and Medicaid could not have responded to the economic downturn, we would have 50 million uninsured today. Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership and an arbitrary cap of the Federal share to States is nothing more than the Federal Government trying to shift all risk to States.

On the other hand, it is also not true that Medicaid is not in need of improvement. The administration is rightly concerned about certain State efforts to provide ``enhanced payments'' to institutional providers as a significant factor in driving Medicaid costs. Secretary Leavitt, in a speech to the World Health Care Congress on February 1, 2005, referred to State efforts to maximize Federal funding as ``the Seven Harmful Habits of Highly Desperate States.'' As a result, he called for ``an uncomfortable, but necessary, conversation with our funding partners, the States.''

Unfortunately, Medicaid reform driven by a budget reconciliation process is not a dialogue or conversation. It is a one-way mechanism for the Federal Government to impose its will on the States. The administration's budget calls for $60 billion in cuts to Medicaid, including $40 billion that would directly harm States.

Where is the conversation in that? In fact, the States have a fair amount of complaint with Federal cost shifting to the States. While I certainly do not speak for the National Governors' Association or National Conference of States Legislatures, some of those grievances are rather obvious and I share them.

For example, according to data from Kaiser Family Foundation, 42 percent of the costs in Medicaid are due to Medicare dual eligible beneficiaries. These dual eligibles are also a major driver of health costs in Medicare and this is a prime example of where better coordination between Medicare and Medicaid could improve both programs. States have been calling for better coordination for years to no avail.

In the Medicare prescription drug bill that was passed by the Congress in 2003, the Federal Government imposed what is referred to as a ``clawback'' mechanism which forces the States to help pay for the Federally-passed Medicare prescription drug benefit. Although States will derive a financial windfall from moving dual eligibles from Medicaid coverage to Medicare, some of the States believe the ``clawback'' will cost them more than if they continued to provide prescription drug coverage themselves.

The prescription drug bill also impacted States financially in a host of other ways that went largely unnoticed, including those that increased Medicaid costs for dual eligibles as a result of increases in the Medicare Part B deductible and increased payments to the new Medicare Advantage plans. The law also required States to help enroll low-income Medicare beneficiaries into the low-income drug benefit.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that States had $5.8 billion in added enrollment of dual eligibles in Medicaid due to what they refer to as a ``woodworking'' effect on dual eligibles trying to sign up for the low-income drug benefit discovering they are also eligible for Medicaid benefits. CBO further estimated that States had $3.1 billion in new administrative and other costs added by the prescription drug legislation.

States had no ability to ``have a conversation'' with the Federal Government about the imposition of such costs on them when the Medicare prescription1rrug drug bill was passed, but they should have and will have in our Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid.

Furthermore, due to a recent rebenchmarking done by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Affairs with respect to the calculation of per capita income in the States and the application of that data by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, many States, including New Mexico, will see a rather dramatic decline in their Federal Medicaid matching percentage. In fact, due to the rebenchmarking and other factors, 29 states will lose Medicaid funding in 2006 by an amount of in excess of $800 million. Again, this occurred with no dialogue or conversation.

Mr. President, I agree with Secretary Leavitt that there should be a conversation among all the stakeholders about the future of Medicaid and about what are the fair division of responsibilities between the Federal Government, States, local governments, providers, and the over 50 million people served by Medicaid. It is for this reason that the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid includes all of those stakeholders at the table to have a full discussion and debate about the future of Medicaid.

It is our intent that the recommendations would not be focused on cutting costs but about improving health care delivery to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. However, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, both can and should be done.

There are those that will argue that a commission may not reach a consensus to make recommendations to

improve the Medicaid program and so is not worth the effort. I would strongly disagree and point to the fact that the National Academy for State Health Policy recently convened a workgroup they called Making Medicaid Work for the 21st Century that included many of the Medicaid stakeholders and came forth with a 78-page report with numerous recommendations with respect to eligibility, benefits, and financing. According to the report entitled Improving Health and Long-Term Care Coverage for Low-Income Americans, the workgroup attempted to ``assess areas where it would be most productive to focus on improvement in the program, and to develop consensus around recommendations for reform.'' I would underscore the emphasis of the workgroup on ``improving'' Medicaid and health coverage. This should be the primary and overriding goal of the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid that we are introducing today.

Before closing, I once again thank Senator Smith, the other 12 Senate cosponsors, and the various stakeholders--State and local governments, providers, and consumers that have endorsed this legislation--in an effort, not to cut Medicaid, but to make it more efficient and effective in the delivery of care to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the Fact Sheet accompanying this legislation printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there are strong reasons that cause me to want to support the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. He is clearly well educated. He has the experience and credentials to be our Attorney General. He clearly has the confidence of the President, and, as a general matter, the President should be given broad discretion in choosing his Cabinet.

Alberto Gonzales's personal history, as the son of immigrant parents, is truly inspiring, and he would be the first Hispanic Attorney General in our Nation's history.

So under any normal circumstances, these reasons would be more than adequate to gain my support for this nomination.

But the fact is that the policies of this administration, which in some cases Judge Gonzales has championed, and in other cases he has willingly acquiesced in, have constituted a sad chapter in our Nation's history. This administration's willingness to evade and sidestep our historic commitment to the rule of law is unfortunate, indeed, and I fear that a vote for the nominee would be interpreted as condoning those reprehensible policies.

In July of 2003, I spoke on the Senate floor about my concerns with the policies and practices of the administration with regard to the detention of three categories of individuals: immigrants, persons detained as material witnesses, and persons detained as enemy combatants.

This morning I reviewed those comments, and I believe today my concerns regarding the failure to afford basic due process rights that I discussed then are well founded.

The administration, in reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, chose to argue against any and all legal protections against arbitrary and abusive exercise of the power of the Government to incarcerate individuals. It made those arguments by using the rationale that we were a nation at war and that the law of war overrode the rule of law as we have known it.

Judge Gonzales played a key role in developing the legal justifications for some of those policies. He strongly supported the decision to hold individuals unilaterally deemed enemy combatants by the President, including American citizens, indefinitely without judicial review. He advised the Judiciary Committee that he accepted the views in the Department of Justice memo that significantly limited the definition of torture and drastically expanded the President's power to overrule Federal and international restrictions to its use.

In remarks to the Standing Committee on Law and National Security of the American Bar Association in February 2004, Alberto Gonzales argued that the ``law of war'' justified the administration's position that the President has virtually unfettered authority to designate individuals as ``enemy combatants'' and then to incarcerate those individuals ``for the duration of hostilities.''

He went on to state:

They need not be guilty of anything; they are detained

simply by virtue of their status as enemy combatants in war.

Since that speech was given, the Federal courts have soundly rejected the proposition that the Government could hold individuals without according them the right to challenge the basis of their detention. In two cases decided this last June, Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of all individuals detained within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and inquire into the legality of their detention. Indeed the right to challenge the Government's deprivation of a person's liberty is fundamental to our Nation's commitment to justice.

In the Hamdi case, the administration maintained that the President's authority to hold enemy combatants included American citizens and that Federal courts could provide minimal judicial oversight. The Government argued that a simple affidavit by a Department of Defense official alleging that Hamdi was involved in hostilities in Afghanistan was sufficient to indefinitely deprive an American citizen of his liberty. According to this administration, it was neither proper nor necessary to hold any factual or evidentiary hearing or to give Hamdi an opportunity to rebut the Government's assertions.

The Supreme Court disagreed and held that an American detained as an enemy combatant must be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for his detention before a neutral arbiter. In reaffirming ``the fundamental nature of a citizen's right to be free from involuntary confinement by his own government without due process of law,'' the Court sent a clear message to the administration that ``a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of our Nation's citizens.''

In Rasul, which involved the cases of foreign nationals held in Guantanamo for over 2 years, the administration argued that despite the fact the United States has exercised exclusive jurisdiction over Guantanamo since 1903, Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear their claims because Cuba technically retained sovereignty in the area.

Once again, the Supreme Court disagreed and granted the detainees the right to demonstrate that they were being held contrary to domestic and international law.

Our failure to afford these individuals a right to be heard and to assert their innocence has in certain cases resulted in the unnecessary and lengthy detention of people who were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. According to a Wall Street Journal article dated January 26 of this year:

Commanders now estimate that up to 40% of the 549 current

detainees probably pose no threat and possess no significant

information.

Whether or not this number is completely accurate, it demonstrates the importance of providing individuals with the right to challenge the Government's claims and the right to refute the basis for their detention.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the administration's position regarding the treatment of detainees is as troubling as its position on its unfettered right to incarcerate. The Justice Department, through its Office of Legal Counsel, on August 1, 2002, issued its now discredited and withdrawn memorandum regarding standards of conduct for interrogation. That document provided legal sanction for abuse of prisoners by narrowing the definition of what we would recognize as torture under the Convention against Torture and other Federal law. It is true that this memorandum was prepared for Alberto Gonzales and not by him, but there is no indication that he disagreed with its conclusions. In fact, when asked about the memorandum in his confirmation hearing, he stated:

I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions that were

reached by the Department.

Removing the bright line that has guided our troops for the last 60 years increases the chances that other countries will refuse to afford our troops legal protections in future conflicts and enhances the likelihood that they will be made subject to harsh interrogation techniques.

MG Mel Montano, former head of the National Guard in the State of New Mexico, in his letter to the Judiciary Committee eloquently gave voice to those concerns. He said:

I was among 12 retired Admirals and Generals . . . who

wrote to you urging that you closely examine Judge Gonzales's

role in setting US policy on torture during the confirmation

hearing.

At that hearing, Judge Gonzales did not allay concerns

about his record. To the contrary, his evasiveness and memory

lapses raised even more concerns. Judge Gonzales continues to

maintain that he can't remember how the infamous torture memo

was generated. He has refused to explain the language in his

own memo which implied that rejecting the applicability of

the Geneva Convention would insulate US personnel for

prosecution of war crimes they might ``need'' to commit. And

he asserts that the Convention Against Torture's prohibition

on cruel and inhuman treatment doesn't apply to aliens

overseas.

In my view these positions put our servicemen and women--

already facing enormous danger--at even greater risk. . . .

The Constitution is clear that the President ``will take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The obvious first responsibility of the Counsel to the President is to advise him concerning what is meant by that obligation.

As regards the basic protections in our Constitution and laws against incarceration and abuse of individuals by the Government, both the President and his legal counsel have failed in that duty. I am compelled to vote no on the nomination.

I ask unanimous consent that the full letter from Major General Montano to the Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with my colleague Senator Domenici. This bill, which passed the Senate in the 108th Congress, is necessary to assist the City of Albuquerque, NM clear title to two parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. If title is cleared, the City will be able to move forward with its plans to improve the properties as part of a Biological Park Project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens, and the entire State of New Mexico.

The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the City began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. Those facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. As part of this effort, in 1997, the City purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had been leased by the City from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the City since 1963, and also used for public park purposes.

In the year 2000, the City's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, it had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the City and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the City dispute the United States' claim of ownership.

This dispute is unnecessarily delaying and complicating the City's progress in developing the Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation, the delay will be indefinite. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, the record indicates that Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is high. This bill is narrowly tailored to address this local interest, affecting only the two properties at issue. The general dispute concerning title to project works is left for the courts to decide.

I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue. While much of what we do here in the Congress is complex and time- consuming work, we should also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to solve local problems caused by federal actions. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with my colleague Senator Domenici. This bill, which passed the Senate in the 108th Congress, is necessary to assist the City of Albuquerque, NM clear title to two parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. If title is cleared, the City will be able to move forward with its plans to improve the properties as part of a Biological Park Project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens, and the entire State of New Mexico.

The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the City began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. Those facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. As part of this effort, in 1997, the City purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had been leased by the City from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the City since 1963, and also used for public park purposes.

In the year 2000, the City's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, it had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the City and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the City dispute the United States' claim of ownership.

This dispute is unnecessarily delaying and complicating the City's progress in developing the Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation, the delay will be indefinite. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, the record indicates that Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is high. This bill is narrowly tailored to address this local interest, affecting only the two properties at issue. The general dispute concerning title to project works is left for the courts to decide.

I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue. While much of what we do here in the Congress is complex and time- consuming work, we should also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to solve local problems caused by federal actions. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici to introduce legislation to allow a transfer of land to Rio Arriba County, NM from the Bureau of Land Management. The land is needed for County facilities, a cemetery for a local parish, and a new public school.

Rio Arriba County is in a difficult position; the needs of the rapidly increasing area population continue to increase but there is precious little land available to the County where they can locate necessary facilities. Fortunately, the County has worked with the BLM to find a parcel of land that each agrees will best serve the interests of the public if it is transferred to County ownership. Indeed, I am told that BLM would likely have handled this transfer administratively if they were not barred from doing so by the particular history of how this parcel came into federal ownership. I am unaware of any opposition to the transfer.

This bill will simply change the legal framework for the parcel so that the transfer can take place. I hope the Senate can act on this bill as quickly as possible so that Rio Arriba County can move forward to meet the pressing needs of the people there.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Domenici and Senator Kyl, I am pleased today to introduce the United States- Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act. This legislation is intended to address the significant challenges concerning water resources that exist along the U.S-Mexico border. Recognizing the importance of these issues to the States making up that border, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California, the Senate passed this bill twice during the 108th Congress. With strong bipartisan, and now bicameral support, I hope we can act quickly to pass it once again so that it can be enacted into law at the earliest opportunity.

The genesis of this bill is a field hearing I conducted over three years ago during my tenure as the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The focus of that hearing was water resource issues developing along the U.S.-Mexico border. In particular, I was concerned that issues regarding the availability of future water supplies were growing, and could lead to conflict in the region. The testimony at that hearing made clear that consensus is lacking on how communities in the border region will address their future water needs. Most significant, I was struck by the lack of agreement on the long- term viability of future groundwater sources, many of which involve aquifers underlying both the United States and Mexico. Given the rapid population growth along the border, and the corresponding increase in demand for potable water, there is a strong need to gain a common and detailed understanding of our shared groundwater resources. A science- based understanding of the resource is the first step to avoid conflicts similar to the one arising in south Texas over Rio Grande water deliveries under the 1944 U.S.-Mexico treaty.

The United States-Mexico Trans-boundary Assessment Act is intended to address the lack of a binational consensus regarding water supplies along the border. It will do this by establishing a scientific program, involving the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Research Institutes, and appropriate authorities and other entities on both sides of the border, to comprehensively assess priority transboundary aquifers. Ultimately, the information and scientific tools developed under the program will be extremely valuable to State and local water resource managers in the border region. Of particular note, the analysis will include a search for new sources of water such as saline aquifers. Continued development of desalination technologies may lead to significant use of this untapped resource in the near future.

I understand that establishing this scientific program and accurately assessing our shared water resources is just a step towards developing the long-term plans and solutions that will help avoid future international disputes concerning scare water supplies. This small step, however, is an important one, and one with broad policy support. In its 6th Report on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, an independent federal advisory committee managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recommended the initiation of a ``border-wide groundwater assessment program to systematically analyze priority trans-boundary aquifers.'' Also, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a January 2003 report of its U.S.-Mexico Binational Council, included as one of its recommendations that Mexico and the United States ``improve data collection, information gathering, and transparency as the first step to developing a long-term strategy for water management.''

Ultimately, an effective long-term strategy will have to be developed by the communities and other water users who reside along the border. Working with each other and their State water resource agencies, I believe successful strategies can be developed so long as the information upon which those plans are based is the most accurate possible. In that respect, the USGS, along with its State-based partners, have a strong and important role to play. The resources and criteria provided by this legislation will ensure that these organizations can fulfill that role which, in turn, will enhance the prospects of our border communities to be able to plan for their future in a manner ensuring their long-term viability and prosperity.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with 13 other Senators to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act of 2005. I am pleased to have my colleague Senator Snowe as the principal cosponsor of the bill. Senator Snowe has been a long-time champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her continued leadership on this important legislation. Senators Ben Nelson, Collins, Rockefeller, Harkin, Grassley, Jeffords, Schumer, Leahy, Clinton, Pryor, Levin, and Specter are also cosponsors of the bill.

Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation could continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all.

Our bill is very simple. It preserves Congress' intent in the Essential Air Service program by repealing a provision in the 2003 FAA reauthorization bill that would for the first time require communities to pay for their commercial air service. The legislation that imposed mandatory cost sharing on communities to retain their commercial air service had been stricken from both the House and Senate versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, but was reinserted by conferees. I believe that any program that forces communities to pay to continue to receive their commercial air service could well be the first step in the total elimination of scheduled air service for many rural communities.

Two times since mandatory cost sharing was enacted Congress has blocked it from being implemented. For fiscal years 2004 and 2005, a bipartisan group of senators included language in the Department of Transportation's appropriations act that bars the use of funds to implement any mandatory cost sharing program. This bill would simply make Congress' ongoing ban permanent.

All across America, small communities face ever-increasing 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 hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system.

The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in thirty-four states. EAS supports an additional 33 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the continuing financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 28 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001.

In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the state's business center and largest city.

I believe this ill-conceived proposal requiring cities to pay to continue to have commercial air service could not come at a worse time for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues.

As I understand it, the mandatory cost-sharing requirements in the FAA reauthorization bill could affect communities in as many as 22 states. Based on an analysis by my staff, the individual cities that could be affected are as follows:

Alabama--Muscle Shoals; Arizona--Prescott, Kingman;

Arkansas--Hot Springs, Harrison, Jonesboro; Colorado--Pueblo;

Georgia--Athens; Iowa--Fort Dodge, Burlington; Kansas--

Salina; Kentucky--Owensboro; Maine--Augusta, Rockland;

Michigan--Iron Mt.; Mississippi Laurel; Missouri--Joplin, Ft.

Leonard Wood; New Hampshire--Lebanon; New Mexico--Hobbs,

Alamogordo, Clovis; New York--Watertown, Jamestown,

Plattsburgh; Oklahoma--Ponca City, Enid; Pennsylvania--

Johnstown, Oil City, Bradford, Altoona; South Dakota--

Brookings, Watertown; Tennessee--Jackson; Texas--Victoria;

Vermont--Rutland; Washington--Moses Lake

As I see it, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could soon see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our bill will preserve the essential air service program and help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. Congress is already on record opposing mandatory cost sharing. I hope all Senators will once again join us in opposing this attack on rural America.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici to introduce legislation to allow a transfer of land to Rio Arriba County, NM from the Bureau of Land Management. The land is needed for County facilities, a cemetery for a local parish, and a new public school.

Rio Arriba County is in a difficult position; the needs of the rapidly increasing area population continue to increase but there is precious little land available to the County where they can locate necessary facilities. Fortunately, the County has worked with the BLM to find a parcel of land that each agrees will best serve the interests of the public if it is transferred to County ownership. Indeed, I am told that BLM would likely have handled this transfer administratively if they were not barred from doing so by the particular history of how this parcel came into federal ownership. I am unaware of any opposition to the transfer.

This bill will simply change the legal framework for the parcel so that the transfer can take place. I hope the Senate can act on this bill as quickly as possible so that Rio Arriba County can move forward to meet the pressing needs of the people there.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with 13 other Senators to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act of 2005. I am pleased to have my colleague Senator Snowe as the principal cosponsor of the bill. Senator Snowe has been a long-time champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her continued leadership on this important legislation. Senators Ben Nelson, Collins, Rockefeller, Harkin, Grassley, Jeffords, Schumer, Leahy, Clinton, Pryor, Levin, and Specter are also cosponsors of the bill.

Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation could continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all.

Our bill is very simple. It preserves Congress' intent in the Essential Air Service program by repealing a provision in the 2003 FAA reauthorization bill that would for the first time require communities to pay for their commercial air service. The legislation that imposed mandatory cost sharing on communities to retain their commercial air service had been stricken from both the House and Senate versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, but was reinserted by conferees. I believe that any program that forces communities to pay to continue to receive their commercial air service could well be the first step in the total elimination of scheduled air service for many rural communities.

Two times since mandatory cost sharing was enacted Congress has blocked it from being implemented. For fiscal years 2004 and 2005, a bipartisan group of senators included language in the Department of Transportation's appropriations act that bars the use of funds to implement any mandatory cost sharing program. This bill would simply make Congress' ongoing ban permanent.

All across America, small communities face ever-increasing 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 hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system.

The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in thirty-four states. EAS supports an additional 33 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the continuing financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 28 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001.

In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the state's business center and largest city.

I believe this ill-conceived proposal requiring cities to pay to continue to have commercial air service could not come at a worse time for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues.

As I understand it, the mandatory cost-sharing requirements in the FAA reauthorization bill could affect communities in as many as 22 states. Based on an analysis by my staff, the individual cities that could be affected are as follows:

Alabama--Muscle Shoals; Arizona--Prescott, Kingman;

Arkansas--Hot Springs, Harrison, Jonesboro; Colorado--Pueblo;

Georgia--Athens; Iowa--Fort Dodge, Burlington; Kansas--

Salina; Kentucky--Owensboro; Maine--Augusta, Rockland;

Michigan--Iron Mt.; Mississippi Laurel; Missouri--Joplin, Ft.

Leonard Wood; New Hampshire--Lebanon; New Mexico--Hobbs,

Alamogordo, Clovis; New York--Watertown, Jamestown,

Plattsburgh; Oklahoma--Ponca City, Enid; Pennsylvania--

Johnstown, Oil City, Bradford, Altoona; South Dakota--

Brookings, Watertown; Tennessee--Jackson; Texas--Victoria;

Vermont--Rutland; Washington--Moses Lake

As I see it, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could soon see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our bill will preserve the essential air service program and help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. Congress is already on record opposing mandatory cost sharing. I hope all Senators will once again join us in opposing this attack on rural America.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, we are in the very early days of this 109th Congress, and one of the items we are all working at is identifying what the agenda should be for this Congress, for this country, and what issues should be given priority and attention, and what issues should be given priority in our funding.

Along those lines, we have tried to introduce some bills early in the Congress to highlight priority concerns and priority issues for consideration by our colleagues, by the country as a whole, and by the administration. One of those bills is S. 15. This is a bill that I introduced along with Senator Reid and many other cosponsors on the Democratic side. It is called the Quality Education For All Act of 2005. This legislation represents a major step forward in advancing educational opportunities for millions of students around the country.

There is no question that we have made progress in recent years in advancing educational opportunity, but we still have very far to go. We need to look at ways to increase that opportunity and also to improve the quality of education in a meaningful and comprehensive manner.

This bill is about making sure that we are doing all we can in the 109th Congress to increase and improve educational opportunities for three different parts of our educational system. The obvious three are: Early childhood education; second, the education of people from kindergarten through the 12th grade; and third, higher education. Those are the three areas I want to briefly discuss today.

Beginning with early education, the foundation for learning begins very early in life. Early education provides critical opportunities to promote children's physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development.

We know that quality early education improves school readiness and fosters greater academic achievement and motivation in later years. Particularly this is true for children from low-income families.

Early education also provides a great return on our investment. The benefits include lower rates of grade retention, placement in special education, and juvenile delinquency, and higher rates of educational attainment and skilled employment.

These positive outcomes for children are not a guarantee when access to quality education is limited, and unfortunately lack of funding has limited access to quality early childhood education in our country.

To illustrate what I am talking about, I will refer to New Mexico, my home State. There are approximately 28,000 children under age 5 in New Mexico living in poverty who are eligible, by virtue of the income level of their families, for Head Start services, but due to inadequate funding of Head Start, New Mexico can only provide services for around 7,600 of those 28,000 children. An additional $186 million is required just to serve the other 20,000 or so eligible New Mexico children. This is without making any quality improvements, just expanding the services we are currently providing to the 7,600 to another 20,000.

My colleagues and I believe we need to increase access to early education. We need to strengthen the quality of those programs as well. The first thing this bill does is expand access to early Head Start for our youngest children. It also increases access to Head Start for children and families living at 130 percent of the poverty line. The current law says if a person's family income exceeds 100 percent of the poverty line, they are not eligible to have their children participate. We would like to see that increased to 130 percent. Too frequently the working poor are left out of these types of programs in that they are not poor enough, but clearly these same families do not have the resources to provide quality early education to their children.

The bill also seeks to strengthen the quality of these early education programs by making significant improvements to the quality of the teaching workforce. We provide grants to States to attract and retain highly qualified teachers, including grants to tribal colleges and universities to increase the number of postsecondary degrees earned by Indian Head Start staff. Plus, the quality set-aside in childcare will be increased from 4 percent up to 6 percent. With access to quality early education, children can enter school ready to learn, and that is in everyone's interest.

I will move on to the issue of educating our children from kindergarten through grade 12. The main legislation that we have passed at the Federal level related to this, of course, is the No Child Left Behind bill. It is intended to deal with this problem. Unfortunately, we cannot expect States

to meet the challenges of the No Child Left Behind Act without providing sufficient resources and guidance to them in how to do that.

The administration assured us that we would be able to fully fund the No Child Left Behind bill when it was enacted. The program in the current fiscal year is underfunded by about $7 billion. There are more than 2.5 million fewer children who are being served through that law than the law promised to serve. In this legislation I have introduced, we provide that the No Child Left Behind bill should be fully funded.

This issue is becoming critical for our schools for the simple reason that we are now in our third year after the enactment of No Child Left Behind, and there are a number of schools that are failing to meet the criteria set out in that law that has to be met, the adequate yearly progress number. They have failed to meet that AYP, adequate yearly progress number, for 2 years in a row. They are in a position now that sanctions will be applied to them for failing to do so.

At this point, Federal resources to help them avoid those sanctions are absolutely critical, and we give this a very high priority in our legislation.

The bill makes a number of changes to the law to ensure that the No Child Left Behind bill is implemented in the manner that Congress intended. It would give schools the option of recalculating their AYP scores from last year and do so by applying the administration's newly issued rules. This would save thousands of schools from inappropriate sanctions that were caused by the delay in publishing the rules that are called for in that act.

There is a particular provision in our legislation that I know Senator Reid from Nevada feels very strongly about, as do many of us, and that is a provision to assist rural school districts with the resources they need to have good schoolbus transportation for all their students. There are many school districts in this country where the schoolbuses are antiquated, where they need to be replaced and modernized, and we provide some assistance to those school districts under this legislation to do that very thing. We call for full funding of the No Child Left Behind bill. We call for full funding of IDEA.

In the final area I wanted to talk about we call for greater access to higher education for all of our students. It is clear that we have many people who would like to be in college, many students who would like to continue with their college education but because of the inability to pay, they are not proceeding with that education. The estimate we have is that there are 180,000 of our young people in this country who are not going to college, to a university, because of their inability to pay.

This is a time when we are worried about too much of the work being done overseas that needs to be done to support our economy. We are worried about outsourcing. We are worried about the immigration of people into this country to take good-paying jobs. The reality is, if we do not educate and train our own young people to take these jobs that outsourcing will continue and will grow over time. So it is very important that we increase resources for higher education.

We are requesting additional Pell grant funds so more students can receive Pell grants. We also need to ensure that students who graduate from high school are ready to go to college, and we have funds for the TRIO Program and the GEAR UP program as well.

There are various provisions in this legislation, some of which were included in legislation introduced in the previous Congress. The truth is, we are trying as a Congress in these early weeks to determine what is going to be given priority, what will we, in fact, decide to fund, and what will we decide to neglect.

A week from this coming Monday the President will present to the Congress his recommended budget for the year. I hope very much that the commitment we are advocating in this legislation for educational funding, for increased access to education, and for improved quality of education, that that same priority will be reflected in the administration's budget we receive on February 7.

I do believe this is an important issue. It is one that has not been talked about a great deal in the last weeks and months. We hear the administration's agenda of what they want to get done in this Congress--with regard to privatizing Social Security, with regard to reforming the Tax Code, with regard to prosecuting the war in Iraq. There is not always much mention of education as a continuing priority. Our legislation tries to correct that. Our legislation tries to ensure that education is a continuing priority.

I commend it to the consideration of all of our colleagues, and I hope very much we will have a chance to enact many of the parts of this legislation as we proceed through the 109th Congress.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague Senator Bennett to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2005. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.

I'd like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-fifth of these roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, seventy-eight percent, are dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.

About 6,400 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian Reservation Road System. However, only BIA roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in TEA- 21 is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.

The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.

For example, in my State of New Mexico, three-quarters of McKinley County is either tribal or federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land.

In San Juan County, UT, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools.

The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, NM, and Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, AZ. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation.

Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy or snowy. If the school buses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school.

These children are literally being left behind.

Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation.

In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. The funding was included at my request in section 1214(d) of TEA-21. Under this provision, $1.5 million was made available each year to be shared equally among the three States. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by school buses.

This program has been very successful. For the last six years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. I had an opportunity in 1998 to see first hand the importance of this funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program.

The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States. The text of the bill is identical to that passed last year by the full Senate in H.R. 3550, the SAFETEA bill.

I believe that continuing this program for six more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far the Nation's largest--and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively.

I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. The Senate already passed this legislation last year. I ask all Senators to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education.

I am pleased that Congressmen Tom Udall of New Mexcio, Rick Renzi of Arizona, and James David Matheson of Utah are introducing a companion bill today in the House. I look forward to working with them this year and with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will enhance the future economic vitality of communities in Otero, Lincoln, Torrance, Guadalupe, and Quay Counties.

The purpose of this legislation is to focus attention on the need to upgrade U.S. Highway 54 to four lanes. I believe improving the transportation infrastructure will help attract good jobs to South, Central, and Eastern New Mexico.

I am honored to have my good friend and colleague, Senator Roberts, as the lead cosponsor of the bill. I am also pleased to have Senators Inhofe as an original cosponsor. In addition, Representatives Udall (NM), Lucas, and Pearce are introducing this bill today on the House side.

Our bill designates U.S. Highway 54 from the border with Mexico at the Bridge of the Americas in El Paso, TX, through New Mexico, and Oklahoma to Wichita, KS, as the Southwest Passage Initiative for Regional and Interstate Transportation, or SPIRIT, corridor. Congress has already included Highway 54 as part of the National Highway System. This bill adds the SPIRIT Corridor to Congress's list of High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System.

About half of the 700-mile-long SPIRIT corridor is in New Mexico and another 200 miles of it are in Kansas. Our goal in asking Congress to designate SPIRIT as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System is to help focus attention on the need for a complete four-lane upgrade of the route from El Paso to Wichita. When completed, the route will link rural areas in the four States to major market centers.

I continue to believe strongly in the importance of highway infrastructure for economic development in my state. Even in this age of the new economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of New Mexico.

It is well known that regions with four-lane highways more readily attract out-of-state visitors and new jobs. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety of a four-lane divided highway.

In New Mexico, U.S. 54 is a fairly level route, bypassing New Mexico's major mountain ranges. The route also traverses some of New Mexico's most dramatic scenery, including three of the state's popular Scenic Byways. One is the Mesalands Scenic Byway in Guadalupe, San Miguel and Quay Counties, incorporating the beautiful tablelands known as El Llano Estacado. Another is the State's newest byway, La Frontera de Llano, which follows highway 39 from Logan to Abbott in Harding County, including the spectacular Canadian River Canyon and the Kiowa National Grasslands. The third byway is the historic Route 66, which crosses Highway 54 from Santa Rosa to Tucumcari.

The SPIRIT corridor passes through Alamogordo, home of the New Mexico Museum of Space History and gateway to the stunning White Sands National Monument.

Highway 54 is also important to our Nation from the perspective of national security. The route directly serves Fort Bliss, the White Sands Missile Range, and Holloman Air Force Base. It also passes through the Nation's breadbasket as well as some of the Nation's most important oil and gas fields.

The route of the SPIRIT corridor starts at Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, home of one the largest concentrations of manufacturing in the border region. As a result of increased trade under NAFTA, commercial border traffic is now much higher at the border crossings in El Paso, Texas, and Santa Teresa, New Mexico. In New Mexico, truck traffic from the border has risen to over 1000 per day and is expected to triple in the next twenty years.

The SPIRIT corridor is perfectly situated to serve international trade and promote economic development along its entire route. The route provides direct connections to four major Interstate Highways: I- 10, 1-35, I-40, and 1-70. SPIRIT is also the shortest route between Chicago and El Paso shaving 137 miles off the major alternative.

Though much of U.S. 54 is currently only two lanes, traffic has been rising dramatically along the entire route since NAFTA was implemented. In New Mexico, total daily traffic levels are nearing 10,000 and are projected to rise to 30,000, with trucks making up 35 percent of the total. In Oklahoma, traffic levels are up to 6,500 per day--40 percent of which are commercial trucks. These traffic statistics clearly reflect the SPIRIT corridor's attraction to commercial and passenger drivers.

New Mexicans recognize the importance of efficient roads to economic development and safety. I have long supported my State's efforts to complete the four-lane upgrade of U.S. 54. The State Department of Transportation rates the project a high priority for New Mexico. The four-lane upgrade of the first 56-mile segment from the Texas border to Alamogordo was completed in 2002. Two more sections in New Mexico remain to be upgraded: 163 miles from Tularosa, north through Carrizozo, Corona, and Vaughn, to Santa Rosa and 50 miles from Tucumcari to the Texas border near Nara Visa in Quay County. This corridor is currently a two-lane facility with no shoulders, no passing zones and various deficient areas. The cost to four-lane these two segments is estimated at $420 million.

I am pleased Governor Richardson has set aside over $130 million as part of the New Mexico's GRIP initiative to upgrade key portions of the route between Tularosa and Santa Rosa. I am committed to working with State to secure the funding required to complete New Mexico's four-lane upgrade as soon as possible. I am pleased the other states are also moving quickly to four-lane their portion of the route.

Once the SPIRIT corridor is designated, New Mexico will have four high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. The other three are the Ports-to-Plains corridor, the Camino Real Corridor, and the East West Transamerica Corridor. These four trade corridors, as well as our close proximity to the border, strongly underscore the vital role New Mexico plays in our Nation's interstate and international transportation network.

The SPIRIT project has broad grassroots support. Most of the cities, counties, and chambers of commerce all the way from Wichita to El Paso have passed resolutions of support for the four-lane upgrade of U.S. 54 along the entire corridor.

I do believe the four-lane upgrade of Highway 54 is vital to the continued economic development for all of the communities along the SPIRIT corridor in New Mexico. I again thank Senators Roberts and Inhofe for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all senators will join us in support of this important legislation. It is my hope that our bill can pass quickly this year or be included when the Senate again considers the reauthorization of a six-year surface transportation bill.

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