Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask for the regular order.

I yield to the Senator from Hawaii for his 1 minute, and I will take 1 minute.

I yield back my time.

During this era of economic slowdown and global threat, it is imperative that our Nation's institutions of higher education are prepared to produce a technologically advanced workforce. Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation, NSF, stated in a recent letter to new Members of Congress that ``. . . American science and technology is failing to tap a vast pool of talent among our women and ethnic minorities.''

As the demographics of the Nation become more and more diverse, minority institutions of higher education take on an even greater importance. It is estimated that in 10 years, minorities will comprise 40 percent of the college-age Americans, the pool from which the Nation's future engineers and scientists will emerge. Therefore, to tap this underutilized pool of future engineers and scientists, it is essential to provide assistance to these minority institutions. The hundreds of minority-serving institutions, MSI, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities, should be provided with the resources to ensure that we are indeed utilizing their large student populations.

I am pleased to join Senator Allen and the other sponsors in introducing the Digital and Wireless Network Technology Act of 2003. This legislation would create an office at the NSF to draw upon its resources to strengthen the ability of MSIs to provide instructions in digital and wireless network technologies.

The legislation is not the result of any special interest groups or highly financial lobbying efforts. It is based upon data provided by 80 of the 118 HBCUs in a study, entitled ``HBCU Technology Assessment Study,'' funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce and conducted by a national black college association and minority business. The study assessed the computing resources, networking, and connectivity of HBCUs and other institutions that provide educational services to predominately African-American populations.

The study concluded that ``during this era of continuous innovation and change, continual upgrading of networking and connectivity systems is critical if HBCUs are to continue to cross the digital divide and not fall victim to it. Failure to do this may result in what is a manageable digital divide today, evolving into an unmanageable digital gulf tomorrow.'' I believe there is reason to conclude that the findings from the study also would apply to Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities.

This bill would build upon the work of Senator Cleland and many others during the last Congress. In testimony before the Commerce Committee last year, the president of the United Negro College Fund, Congressman William Gray, stated that we can ill afford to promote college graduates who enter the workforce without mastering the basic computer skills and understanding how information technology applies to their work or profession.

I feel it is imperative that we do all we can to improve the quality of education for students at our minority serving institutions. These institutions will continue to play an important role in providing the Nation with a well-educated and talented workforce.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

During this era of economic slowdown and global threat, it is imperative that our Nation's institutions of higher education are prepared to produce a technologically advanced workforce. Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation, NSF, stated in a recent letter to new Members of Congress that ``. . . American science and technology is failing to tap a vast pool of talent among our women and ethnic minorities.''

As the demographics of the Nation become more and more diverse, minority institutions of higher education take on an even greater importance. It is estimated that in 10 years, minorities will comprise 40 percent of the college-age Americans, the pool from which the Nation's future engineers and scientists will emerge. Therefore, to tap this underutilized pool of future engineers and scientists, it is essential to provide assistance to these minority institutions. The hundreds of minority-serving institutions, MSI, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities, should be provided with the resources to ensure that we are indeed utilizing their large student populations.

I am pleased to join Senator Allen and the other sponsors in introducing the Digital and Wireless Network Technology Act of 2003. This legislation would create an office at the NSF to draw upon its resources to strengthen the ability of MSIs to provide instructions in digital and wireless network technologies.

The legislation is not the result of any special interest groups or highly financial lobbying efforts. It is based upon data provided by 80 of the 118 HBCUs in a study, entitled ``HBCU Technology Assessment Study,'' funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce and conducted by a national black college association and minority business. The study assessed the computing resources, networking, and connectivity of HBCUs and other institutions that provide educational services to predominately African-American populations.

The study concluded that ``during this era of continuous innovation and change, continual upgrading of networking and connectivity systems is critical if HBCUs are to continue to cross the digital divide and not fall victim to it. Failure to do this may result in what is a manageable digital divide today, evolving into an unmanageable digital gulf tomorrow.'' I believe there is reason to conclude that the findings from the study also would apply to Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities.

This bill would build upon the work of Senator Cleland and many others during the last Congress. In testimony before the Commerce Committee last year, the president of the United Negro College Fund, Congressman William Gray, stated that we can ill afford to promote college graduates who enter the workforce without mastering the basic computer skills and understanding how information technology applies to their work or profession.

I feel it is imperative that we do all we can to improve the quality of education for students at our minority serving institutions. These institutions will continue to play an important role in providing the Nation with a well-educated and talented workforce.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I think Senator Hollings controls the time for the other side.

Go ahead. I am fine.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I thank Senator Hollings for his continued efforts on this issue. It has been a great pleasure and honor for me to have had the privilege of working with him for the last 16, 17 years as a member of the Commerce Committee, where I find the most interesting and challenging issues.

Frankly, this issue of Amtrak, to me, has been one of complete frustration. I say that because time after time after time, until the present administrator of Amtrak became the head of Amtrak, Mr. Gunn, with those who ran this organization, which was put together in 1973, I believe, and was committed to being financially independent within 3 years, there has been an endless drain of resources, an endless series of frustrations, and a continuous battle, which goes on as we speak.

I think it is important, particularly in light of the last comments made by my dear friend from Vermont and my newly renewed friend from New Jersey, who rejoins us, about the importance of Amtrak. The fact is, Amtrak carries less than 1 percent of the traveling public, and we continue to pour in billions of dollars.

We are subsidizing--it is remarkable--we are subsidizing long distance the Lake County Limited, $1,218.45 per passenger--per passenger. You could charter an airplane and fly these passengers from one place to the other rather than pay $1,200; the Sunset Limited, $347.45; the Pennsylvania, $292.34; the Three Rivers, $244.99 per passenger. We recently, thank God, canceled the Lake County Limited which was subsidizing $1,218.45 per passenger.

I say to my friends, the reality is that Amtrak is probably a vital and important means of transportation for the Northeast corridor. It has the potential to perform that same vital function in the Far West. But to continue with this grandiose vision of a national train system where you envision someone getting on a train in Dallas and riding that train all the way to Los Angeles, which takes about 2 days now, where they can go to the airport in Dallas and fly to Los Angeles in about 2 \1/2\ hours, is crazy. It is crazy.

Americans are not interested, even if you have a 200-mile-an-hour train. I say to the Presiding Officer, at present, they are not going to get on a train in Atlanta and go to San Francisco. They may for vacation, and they may for recreation, but to think it will ever be

anything close to sustaining just flies in the face of every experience we have had since Amtrak was formed.

I am glad to hear of the commitment to reform Amtrak on the part of my distinguished friend from South Carolina who knows as much about this issue as any Member of this body. I am pleased the Senator from Alaska who, in negotiations, as this bill goes into conference, will insist that we come up with a reform plan. I am encouraged, I am exuberant that Mr. Gunn has taken control, and already, as my friend from South Carolina has pointed out, has made some very tough decisions and increased efficiency rather dramatically.

Let me also point out to my friends, despite claims that it is essentially the same level, ridership is the same level as it was in 1979. I remind my friends to read again the August 6 Washington Post.

The Acela Express, the premium high-speed train that Amtrak

has counted on. . . .

That I heard for years was the panacea; this was the pot of gold we were looking for.

Amtrak President David L. Gunn said that Amtrak will never

order another Acela Express, which is manufactured by a

consortium of Bombardier Transportation of Montreal and

Alstom of Paris.

The train has become highly popular with travelers in the

Northeast Corridor but has also become increasingly

unreliable. In July, the number of Acela problems spiked.

There was an average of one cancellation or en-route

breakdown for mechanical reasons every day. The train also

has the worst on-time record for any Northeast Corridor

train.

This, I say to my friends, is the train that was going to solve all our problems because we would be able to get from Washington to New York in an hour to an hour and a half. Now Mr. Gunn is not going to order any more of them. In fact, he is going to go to court and sue them for the lousy product he got.

But the trains experienced repeated delays and

developmental problems. The first one arrived more than a

year after the last extended deadline. In a rush to get the

trains on line, the manufacturer made modifications to each

train set to solve the latest problem, meaning that none of

the 18 train sets delivered to Amtrak so far is the same as

any other.

My God.

That fact complicates maintenance and trouble shooting.

Gunn said the problems range from the serious--one Acela

electronic braking system froze up and blocked other traffic

North of Union Station--to less serious, such as restroom

doors that sometimes stick and trap passengers inside.

``You'd think that after 170 years of railroading, you

could have a crapper door that works,'' Gunn says.

Some of this is entertaining, but it is also the investment of billions of taxpayers' money. I urge all of my colleagues to read a very interesting article out of the New York Times Sunday magazine, ``Amtrak Must Die: A Train Lover's Lament.'' It is a very interesting and entertaining article which I will not read because it is at some length. But it talks about an individual who got on a train in Chicago and tried to get out to L.A. hours late. It is just a sad story, but it is a story that is repeated.

My point is, after dealing with this issue for all these years, we need fundamental reform. I wish to point out--and I think all my colleagues should know--we are going to provide them now with enough to meet the $1.2 billion Mr. Gunn says he needs. He also says he needs $2.2 billion next year. He needs $2.2 billion next year to keep operating.

Now remember, we are talking about less than 1 percent of the passengers of the traveling public. For less than 1 percent of the traveling public, we are going to spend $1.2 billion this year, $2.2 billion next year, and God only knows when this will stop.

We have every right to expect reform, and if that reform means cutting long distance lines, then we ought to admit there is a clear record that some long distance lines do not work and no one wants to ride them. The facts are overwhelming.

When I say we are going to have reform, I mean reform, and that means the Department of Transportation has to come up with a plan, and that plan has to be validated by Mr. Gunn, who has already gained great credibility amongst all of us, and then that plan has to be put into effect.

I wish to point out one other point in my conversation, and I am sure Senator Hollings had the same conversation with Mr. Gunn. If the States want to contribute, and admittedly States are in severe difficulty now, including my own, to maintain these routes, then we welcome it. I think it is a fine idea. It may be difficult because when you go through one State from another to another, then you have to have participation of all the States. But we have to think outside the box.

Thirty years ago we were going to have a fiscally independent Amtrak in 3 years. Maybe that was unrealistic at the time, but as short a time as 2 years ago, Mr. Gunn's predecessor testified before the Commerce Committee and said: We are on the glidepath to fiscal independence. Those were his exact words. I looked at him with astonishment and amazement because nobody who knew anything about Amtrak believed that. But yet we sat there and watched Amtrak deteriorate further and further.

The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, an attempt that again Senator Hollings and I and Members of the Commerce Committee made, provided the operational procurement, labor and liability reforms that Amtrak requested so it could operate more as a legitimate business. The reforms were designed to allow Amtrak to run its operations based on good business decisions rather than political pressures. For example, reforms allowed Amtrak to set its own route structure instead of conform to a statutory mandate. Reforms allowed Amtrak to contract out work where it decided it would make sense. Reforms allowed Amtrak to negotiate reasonable labor protection agreements. Unfortunately, little, if any, progress was made as a result.

As I said, for years after the passage of that bill, Amtrak presented glowing reports on its achievement that it was on a glide path to self- sufficiency. How many times did members of the Commerce Committee hear those words: We are on a glide path to self-sufficiency?

If I sound a bit cynical, it is because we have not been told the truth, but I do believe that Mr. Gunn has. Mr. Gunn's straight talk has been refreshing.

In a letter to me, Mr. Gunn stated:

Amtrak pretended it was on a glide path to self-sufficiency

and maintained that fiction far too long. It took actions

such as borrowing money through a variety of means, the

primary example being the mortgage of Penn Station last year,

and now debt service is a huge cost. This is not a way to run

a railroad and not the way I will run the railroad. Too many

happy words have hidden some very dismal financial results.

That really is the first time, in Mr. Gunn's letter to me, that we have had a straightforward and honest depiction of Amtrak's conditions. I think that was the day when many of us began having confidence that Mr. Gunn's stewardship would lead to some beneficial results.

Over the past decade, Amtrak spent almost $3 billion in taxpayers' dollars on the Northeast corridor to develop higher speed service, as I mentioned. Acela was to have been Amtrak's silver bullet for achieving operational self-sufficiency, reportedly generating $180 million in profits annually. Instead, it has become another of their many failures over the past 5 years and has raised concerns about Amtrak's ability to handle major rail infrastructure projects.

Problems with the project, as I mentioned, have included significant cost overruns, a year's delay in the introduction of Acela service and ongoing mechanical problems with the equipment. The latter recently became so severe that Amtrak was forced to remove the train sets from service for considerable periods of time. Again, we are losing a huge amount of money per passenger on those routes I mentioned before.

So I want to thank my colleagues for their involvement in this issue. I really believe we have every right to demand a genuine proposal to reform the system. I believe we need a Northeast corridor. I believe we may need them in the West and we may need them in other parts of the country, but the burden of proof of having to need them lies with Amtrak and its proponents, and we should not be asking our citizens to continue to subsidize routes in the hundreds and sometimes even thousands of dollars per passenger that will

never, ever, become economically viable.

So the status quo at $2 billion, in my view, which will be what Amtrak will be asking for next year, is not affordable or acceptable.

I guess this is a triumph of hope over good sense. I hope it is not, but I have some confidence that Mr. Gunn will work with us and the appropriators, as well as the authorizers, and come up with a reform plan that will give us a system that Americans can be proud of rather than the shameful history of Amtrak over the last 30 years.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

Would the Senator from Delaware like to take a couple of extra minutes?

I thank the Senator from Delaware. I will just take a few minutes, I say to my dear friend from Delaware. I just want to point out I don't think the decision necessarily has to be to shut it down or to fund it. I think it is to reform the system.

The Senator from New York just came on and talked about how the general funds subsidize aviation. The fact is that $3.08 over the last 5 years has come out of the general fund per passenger. Compare that with the Sunset Limited, which is $347 per passenger; the Texas Eagle, which is $258 per passenger; the Pennsylvanian, which is $292 per passenger; the Lake County Limited, which has been canceled--$1,200 per passenger.

The fact is that most of the funding for highways and for air service in America comes out of user fees. It comes out of trust funds that are funded by user fees. And we just laid a whole lot more on the airlines in the interest of aviation safety.

But the fact is that if it is going to cost $347 per passenger, then the Senator from Delaware is right: You either shut it down or you tell the American people that we are going to fund the Sunset Limited for $347 per passenger forever. Or we are going to tell the American people that we are going to fund the Northeast corridor, we are going to fund the Far West and other places in the country where it is economically viable and, in many cases, as the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Vermont have pointed out, vital to have that service.

The problem with Amtrak has not been in the Northeast, although the mismanagement--I am sorry you were not here while we talked about Acela and those incredible failures.

They are the words of Mr. Gunn, the new President, not mine--the new President of Amtrak, Mr. Gunn, about their failures. I am sorry the Senator from Delaware wasn't here:

Amtrak pretended it was on a glidepath to self-sufficiency

and maintained that fiction far too long. It took action

such as borrowing money through a variety of means, the

primary example being the mortgaging of Penn Station last

year, and now debt service is a huge cost. That's not the

way to run a railroad and not the way I will run the

railroad. Too many happy words have hidden very dismal

financial results.

I come to this floor year after year, talking about these problems and, in all due respect to my dear friend from Delaware, he never recognized these problems. These problems were never recognized by the proponents of Amtrak. These were serious problems.

I am glad to yield to my friend from Delaware.

I would be glad to yield an additional 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware if he wants.

Let me add one additional point. The thing that frustrated me--and I know my friend from Delaware appreciates this--is that people who are running Amtrak would come before the Commerce Committee and say: We are on a glidepath to self-sufficiency.

We have kind of an odd thing, that we have hearings and witnesses come and testify and we take their word for it. We say: Gee, that's wonderful. Time after time after time.

The reason why we express our frustrations is because, despite the assurances that are made, ``glidepath to self-sufficiency,'' it was far from the truth. That is why I know the Senator from Delaware and I are both very pleased that Mr. Gunn is telling us exactly how it is. That is a critical aspect of this whole issue and frankly one of the reasons why I believe that Mr. Gunn has said he needs this $1.2 billion to continue operating while he institutes these reforms. That's one of the reasons why I am in favor of it and I think the reason why the Senator from Alaska very reluctantly agreed to allow this amendment to go through.

I am sorry. I want to apologize to my colleagues. I have probably overtalked this issue. But I do take them at their word, that we will sit down this year and work together: First with the Department of Transportation, sending over their reform plan. Then working with Amtrak and working with all of our colleagues and coming up with a plan for genuine reform of Amtrak so we don't have to go through this debate on an annual basis. And it will remove the only existing impediment to the friendship and affection that I feel for my friend from Delaware.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator wants me to, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize the distribution of judgment funds to eligible tribal members of the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona. Identical legislation unanimously passed the Senate last year, but was not able to be considered by the House of Representatives prior to the adjournment of the 107th Congress.

The Gila River Indian Community Judgment Fund Distribution Act resolves two half-century old claims by the Gila River tribe against the United States for failure to meet Federal obligations to protect the community's use of water from the Gila River and Salt River in Arizona. The original complaint was filed before the Indian Claims Commission on August 8, 1951. In 1982, the United States Court of Claims confirmed liability of the United States to the community, and recently the settlement of these two claims was determined to be 7 million.

So much time has passed that the Indian Claims Commission formerly in charge of fund distributions no longer exists. However, a debt does not disappear. The judgment award has since been transferred from the Indian Claims Commission to a trust account on behalf of the community, managed by the Office of Trust Management at the Department of the Interior.

This judgment award was certified by the Treasury Department on October 6, 1999 for the final portion of the litigation to the two remaining dockets of the Gila River Indian Community. Since that time, the community has been working with the BIA in an attempt to finalize a use and distribution plan to submit to Congress for approval. As outlined in its plan, the community has decided to distribute the judgment award equally to eligible tribal members.

The purpose of this legislation is to comply with Federal regulations which requires congressional approval for distribution of judgment funds to tribal members. The terms of the legislation reflect an agreement by all parties for a distribution plan for final approval by the Congress. As part of this legislation, the BIA is also seeking to resolve remaining expert assistance loans by the Gila River Indian Community, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Seminole Tribe of Florida, as originally authorized by the Indian Claims Commission.

Members of the Gila River Indian Community have waited half a century for final resolution of all their legal claims regarding this matter. After considerable delay, it is only fair to resolve this matter and provide compensation as soon as possible. I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to move this legislation through the process.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. This legislation is identical to legislation which passed the Senate unanimously in September of last year.

The Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution in 1998, with the purpose of offering an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over environmental conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often result in lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to resolve. In cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for court proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is still a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need for alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to address the rising number of environmental conflicts that have clogged Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress.

The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to build a consensus amoung fractious and even hostile interests. The Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability.

The success of the Institute is far greater than we could have imagined. The Institute began operations in 1999 and has already provided assistance to parties in more than 100 environmental conflicts across 30 states.

Agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and others have all called upon the Institute for assistance. Even the Federal courts are referring cases to the Institute for mediation, including such high profile cases as the management of endangered salmon throughout the Columbia River Basin in the Northwest.

The Institution also assisted in facilitating interagency temawork for the Everglades Task Force which oversees the South Everglades Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest Service requested assistance to bring ranchers and environmental advocates in the southwest to work on grazing and environmental compliance issues. Even members of Congress have sought the Institute's assistance to review implementation of the Nation's fundamental environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, to assess how it can be improved using collaborative processes.

The Institute accomplishes its work by maintaining a national roster of 180 environmental mediators and facilitators located in 39 states. We believe that mediators should be involved in the geographic area of the dispute whenever possible and that system is working.

The demand on the Institute's assistance had been much greater than anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal Government. The Institute has served as a mediator between agencies and as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long- term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and designing international systems for preventing or resolving disputes.

Unfortunately, experience has also taught us that most Federal agencies are limited from participating because of inadequate funds to pay for mediation services. This legislation will authorize a participation fund to be used to support meaningful participation of parties to Federal environmental disputes. The participation fund will provide matching funds to stakeholders who cannot otherwise afford mediation fees or costs of providing technical assistance.

In addition to creating this new participation fund, this legislation simply extends the authorization for the Institute for an additional five years with a modest increase in its operation budget. The proposed increase is in response to the overwhelming demand on the Institute's services, an investment that will ultimately benefit taxpayers by preventing costly litigation.

I hope that we can consider this legislation expeditiously to ensure continuing support for the valuable services of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to our Nation.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez. Chavez is one of the most revered public servants in our history for his leadership in helping organize migrant farm workers, and for providing inspiration to those most oppressed in our society. He is an exemplary American hero. It is important that we honor his struggle and do what we can to preserve certain sites located in Arizona, California and other States that are significant to his life.

Cesar Chavez, a fellow Arizonan born in Yuma, was the son of migrant farm workers. He no doubt loved qualities of life associated with his family's Hispanic heritage, but he will be remembered for the sincerity of his American patriotism. He fought to help Americans transcend distinctions of experience, and share equally in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. He made America a bigger and better nation.

While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a defender to worker's rights. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which latter became the United Farm Workers of America. Essentially, he gave a voice to those that had no voice. In his words: ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community. . .our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.''

I introduced this legislation last October and received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my constituents in Arizona, but from Americans all across the nation. Similar legislation was introduced by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, D-CA, in September 2001. The bill specifically authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The study would be conducted within three years. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for a future bill that will designate land for these sites to become historic landmarks.

Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. He was a true American hero who

embodied the values of justice and freedom this nation holds dear. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am proposing bipartisan legislation to provide the basis for reform of the administration and management of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual Indians. I am pleased that my two colleagues from South Dakota, Senators Daschle and Johnson, are once again joining me in this effort.

Last year, we introduced a similar bill to serve as a legislative vehicle in the event a consensus agreement could be reached during an extensive dialogue between a designated tribal task force and the U.S. Department of Interior on administrative and legislative reforms to federal management of trust funds and assets. Unfortunately, the dialogue resulted in a stalemate. While we received many favorable comments to move forward with this legislation, and conducted a full committee hearing to consider it, a sufficient consensus did not exist to approve the legislation prior to the adjournment of the 107th session.

We are reintroducing this legislation again because we believe it is important to continue to offer a legislative remedy to the management problems plaguing the Interior Department and instill a meaningful role for Indian tribes in the process. Indian trust funds management continues to be mired in controversy and systemic mismanagement. Native American beneficiaries

continue to be denied a full reconciliation of money rightfully belonging to them.

The history of Indian trust funds management is long, exhaustive and fraught with controversy. It is a problem inherited by successive Administrations yet only limited progress has been made. The major structural changes called for in the 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act have not been accomplished. Two Special Trustees have resigned in frustration and high-level government officials have twice been held in civil contempt by the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. for breach of fiduciary duties.

No one is more frustrated about the lack of resolution to these long- standing problems than the Native American beneficiaries. However, recent reorganization plans submitted to the Court by the Interior Department earlier this month have only raised more controversy and concern among Indian tribes and beneficiaries as to the extent the Department will fully account for lost and mismanaged trust accounts. Significant questions have also been raised as to the impact of these proposed plans on long-standing Federal policies of self-determination and the function of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

I cannot speak as to the merits of the Department's recent plans. The fact is, many in the Congress were not notified of the Department's intended actions nor has there been an opportunity to evaluate these plans through the respective legislative committees of jurisdiction. I have sought a commitment from the incoming Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to hold hearings as soon as possible on recent Department proposals that will restructure trust funds management as well as to consider legislative proposals such as the one we're proposing today.

The purpose of this legislation we are introducing is simple. It focuses on two primary changes to the 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act, the underlying law governing Indian trust funds management. First, it creates a single line-of-authority in the Interior Department by establishing a Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform; and second, the bill strengthens provisions for Indian tribes and beneficiaries to directly manage or co-manage with the Interior secretary trust funds and assets, based on successful self-determination policies.

A fundamental objective of this legislation is to raise the profile of Indian trust funds management within the Interior Department and provide a statutory basis for Indian tribes to assume a greater management role in future management of their trust funds and trust assets. The structure of this legislation is similar to the bill introduced last year, but it is modified to reflect comments received from Indian tribes.

The legislation affirms the fiduciary standards to be applied to the management of Indian trust funds and assets. The Office of Special Trustee is abolished and replaced with the Office of Trust Reform under the direction of a new Deputy Secretary. The existing Advisory Committee to the Special Trustee is replaced with a Task Force composed of representatives of the tribes and the Department who will work with the new Deputy Secretary to develop appropriate standards and further necessary changes.

Senator Daschle, Senator Johnson and I introduce this legislation as a demonstration of our continuing commitment to seek a real and meaningful trust reform solution that provides an active role for tribal participation and consultation. We hope this legislation will prompt the necessary dialogue to ensure reform to Indian trust funds and trust assets management in a way that increases accountability of the Interior Department and respects the fact that the tribes must be involved as active participants without the threat of termination of the trust responsibility.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to authorize the distribution of judgment funds to eligible tribal members of the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona. Identical legislation unanimously passed the Senate last year, but was not able to be considered by the House of Representatives prior to the adjournment of the 107th Congress.

The Gila River Indian Community Judgment Fund Distribution Act resolves two half-century old claims by the Gila River tribe against the United States for failure to meet Federal obligations to protect the community's use of water from the Gila River and Salt River in Arizona. The original complaint was filed before the Indian Claims Commission on August 8, 1951. In 1982, the United States Court of Claims confirmed liability of the United States to the community, and recently the settlement of these two claims was determined to be 7 million.

So much time has passed that the Indian Claims Commission formerly in charge of fund distributions no longer exists. However, a debt does not disappear. The judgment award has since been transferred from the Indian Claims Commission to a trust account on behalf of the community, managed by the Office of Trust Management at the Department of the Interior.

This judgment award was certified by the Treasury Department on October 6, 1999 for the final portion of the litigation to the two remaining dockets of the Gila River Indian Community. Since that time, the community has been working with the BIA in an attempt to finalize a use and distribution plan to submit to Congress for approval. As outlined in its plan, the community has decided to distribute the judgment award equally to eligible tribal members.

The purpose of this legislation is to comply with Federal regulations which requires congressional approval for distribution of judgment funds to tribal members. The terms of the legislation reflect an agreement by all parties for a distribution plan for final approval by the Congress. As part of this legislation, the BIA is also seeking to resolve remaining expert assistance loans by the Gila River Indian Community, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Seminole Tribe of Florida, as originally authorized by the Indian Claims Commission.

Members of the Gila River Indian Community have waited half a century for final resolution of all their legal claims regarding this matter. After considerable delay, it is only fair to resolve this matter and provide compensation as soon as possible. I hope that my colleagues will act quickly to move this legislation through the process.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. This legislation is identical to legislation which passed the Senate unanimously in September of last year.

The Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution in 1998, with the purpose of offering an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over environmental conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often result in lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to resolve. In cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for court proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is still a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need for alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to address the rising number of environmental conflicts that have clogged Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress.

The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to build a consensus amoung fractious and even hostile interests. The Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability.

The success of the Institute is far greater than we could have imagined. The Institute began operations in 1999 and has already provided assistance to parties in more than 100 environmental conflicts across 30 states.

Agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and others have all called upon the Institute for assistance. Even the Federal courts are referring cases to the Institute for mediation, including such high profile cases as the management of endangered salmon throughout the Columbia River Basin in the Northwest.

The Institution also assisted in facilitating interagency temawork for the Everglades Task Force which oversees the South Everglades Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest Service requested assistance to bring ranchers and environmental advocates in the southwest to work on grazing and environmental compliance issues. Even members of Congress have sought the Institute's assistance to review implementation of the Nation's fundamental environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, to assess how it can be improved using collaborative processes.

The Institute accomplishes its work by maintaining a national roster of 180 environmental mediators and facilitators located in 39 states. We believe that mediators should be involved in the geographic area of the dispute whenever possible and that system is working.

The demand on the Institute's assistance had been much greater than anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal Government. The Institute has served as a mediator between agencies and as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long- term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and designing international systems for preventing or resolving disputes.

Unfortunately, experience has also taught us that most Federal agencies are limited from participating because of inadequate funds to pay for mediation services. This legislation will authorize a participation fund to be used to support meaningful participation of parties to Federal environmental disputes. The participation fund will provide matching funds to stakeholders who cannot otherwise afford mediation fees or costs of providing technical assistance.

In addition to creating this new participation fund, this legislation simply extends the authorization for the Institute for an additional five years with a modest increase in its operation budget. The proposed increase is in response to the overwhelming demand on the Institute's services, an investment that will ultimately benefit taxpayers by preventing costly litigation.

I hope that we can consider this legislation expeditiously to ensure continuing support for the valuable services of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to our Nation.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez. Chavez is one of the most revered public servants in our history for his leadership in helping organize migrant farm workers, and for providing inspiration to those most oppressed in our society. He is an exemplary American hero. It is important that we honor his struggle and do what we can to preserve certain sites located in Arizona, California and other States that are significant to his life.

Cesar Chavez, a fellow Arizonan born in Yuma, was the son of migrant farm workers. He no doubt loved qualities of life associated with his family's Hispanic heritage, but he will be remembered for the sincerity of his American patriotism. He fought to help Americans transcend distinctions of experience, and share equally in the rights and responsibilities of freedom. He made America a bigger and better nation.

While Chavez and his family migrated across the southwest looking for farm work, he evolved into a defender to worker's rights. He founded the National Farm Workers Association in 1962, which latter became the United Farm Workers of America. Essentially, he gave a voice to those that had no voice. In his words: ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community. . .our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.''

I introduced this legislation last October and received an overwhelming positive response, not only from my constituents in Arizona, but from Americans all across the nation. Similar legislation was introduced by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, D-CA, in September 2001. The bill specifically authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether any of the sites meet the criteria for being listed on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. The study would be conducted within three years. The goal of this legislation is to establish a foundation for a future bill that will designate land for these sites to become historic landmarks.

Cesar Chavez was a humble man of deep conviction who understood what it meant to serve and sacrifice for others. He was a true American hero who

embodied the values of justice and freedom this nation holds dear. Honoring the places of his life will enable his legacy to inspire and serve as an example for our future leaders.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am proposing bipartisan legislation to provide the basis for reform of the administration and management of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual Indians. I am pleased that my two colleagues from South Dakota, Senators Daschle and Johnson, are once again joining me in this effort.

Last year, we introduced a similar bill to serve as a legislative vehicle in the event a consensus agreement could be reached during an extensive dialogue between a designated tribal task force and the U.S. Department of Interior on administrative and legislative reforms to federal management of trust funds and assets. Unfortunately, the dialogue resulted in a stalemate. While we received many favorable comments to move forward with this legislation, and conducted a full committee hearing to consider it, a sufficient consensus did not exist to approve the legislation prior to the adjournment of the 107th session.

We are reintroducing this legislation again because we believe it is important to continue to offer a legislative remedy to the management problems plaguing the Interior Department and instill a meaningful role for Indian tribes in the process. Indian trust funds management continues to be mired in controversy and systemic mismanagement. Native American beneficiaries

continue to be denied a full reconciliation of money rightfully belonging to them.

The history of Indian trust funds management is long, exhaustive and fraught with controversy. It is a problem inherited by successive Administrations yet only limited progress has been made. The major structural changes called for in the 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act have not been accomplished. Two Special Trustees have resigned in frustration and high-level government officials have twice been held in civil contempt by the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. for breach of fiduciary duties.

No one is more frustrated about the lack of resolution to these long- standing problems than the Native American beneficiaries. However, recent reorganization plans submitted to the Court by the Interior Department earlier this month have only raised more controversy and concern among Indian tribes and beneficiaries as to the extent the Department will fully account for lost and mismanaged trust accounts. Significant questions have also been raised as to the impact of these proposed plans on long-standing Federal policies of self-determination and the function of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

I cannot speak as to the merits of the Department's recent plans. The fact is, many in the Congress were not notified of the Department's intended actions nor has there been an opportunity to evaluate these plans through the respective legislative committees of jurisdiction. I have sought a commitment from the incoming Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to hold hearings as soon as possible on recent Department proposals that will restructure trust funds management as well as to consider legislative proposals such as the one we're proposing today.

The purpose of this legislation we are introducing is simple. It focuses on two primary changes to the 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act, the underlying law governing Indian trust funds management. First, it creates a single line-of-authority in the Interior Department by establishing a Deputy Secretary for Trust Management and Reform; and second, the bill strengthens provisions for Indian tribes and beneficiaries to directly manage or co-manage with the Interior secretary trust funds and assets, based on successful self-determination policies.

A fundamental objective of this legislation is to raise the profile of Indian trust funds management within the Interior Department and provide a statutory basis for Indian tribes to assume a greater management role in future management of their trust funds and trust assets. The structure of this legislation is similar to the bill introduced last year, but it is modified to reflect comments received from Indian tribes.

The legislation affirms the fiduciary standards to be applied to the management of Indian trust funds and assets. The Office of Special Trustee is abolished and replaced with the Office of Trust Reform under the direction of a new Deputy Secretary. The existing Advisory Committee to the Special Trustee is replaced with a Task Force composed of representatives of the tribes and the Department who will work with the new Deputy Secretary to develop appropriate standards and further necessary changes.

Senator Daschle, Senator Johnson and I introduce this legislation as a demonstration of our continuing commitment to seek a real and meaningful trust reform solution that provides an active role for tribal participation and consultation. We hope this legislation will prompt the necessary dialogue to ensure reform to Indian trust funds and trust assets management in a way that increases accountability of the Interior Department and respects the fact that the tribes must be involved as active participants without the threat of termination of the trust responsibility.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Joint Resolution expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to human rights in Central Asia, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Joint Resolution expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to human rights in Central Asia, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the National Academy of Science has said, ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.''

Over the past five years, the Commerce Committee has held eight hearings on climate change. Two the last five years, 1998 and 2002, have been the warmest, in terms of average global temperatures, ever recorded. According to a recent report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA, nine of the warmest years have occurred since 1990. As reported in the New York Times on December 31, 2002, many experts think it is more likely than not 2003 will either match or exceed the 1998 average temperature record of 58 degrees Fahrenheit.

Researchers at the University of Texas, Wesleyan University, and Stanford University recently reported in the journal Nature that global warming is forcing species around the world, from California starfish to Alpine herbs, to move into new ranges or alter habits that could disrupt ecosystems. The report states there is ``very high confidence,'' defined as having more than 95 percent of observed changes which were principally caused by climate change, that climate change is already affecting living systems. The end result off these changes could be substantial ecological disruption, local losses in wildlife, and extinction of certain species.

This and many other reports over the years have highlighted time and again the consequences of a warming climate system. We have seen the destruction of over 70 percent of the heat-sensitive corals reefs, the melting of glaciers at unprecedented levels, the increase of wildfires, and the spreading of diseases. A large German insurance company has estimated that global warming could cost $300 billion annually by 2050 in weather damage, pollution, industrial and agricultural losses, and other expenses.

Our international partners, the States, and private industry are reacting to this challenge. For example, California has enacted legislation that will regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. The European Union just recently approved an emissions trading system. The World Bank has estimated that greenhouse gas trading will be a $10 billion market by 2005. Financial ratification of the Kyoto Protocol rests with Russia.

Industry is also paying attention to what's happening. Laws firms and insurance companies are setting up business units to deal with climate- related risks.

Thus far, however, little has actually been accomplished to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States must do something, but it must also do the right thing. Many have focused on what we do not know or the uncertainties are climate change. I prefer a more sound and scientific approach of starting with what is known or given and then proceeding to solve the problem at hand.

While we cannot say with 100 percent confidence what will happen in the future, we do know the mission of greenhouse gases is not healthy for the environment. As many of the top scientists through the world have stated, the sooner we start to reduce these emissions, the better off we will be in the future.

In 2001, Senator Lieberman and I announced our intention to develop legislation to require mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases emissions and provide for the trading of emission allowances. We have been working with industry and the environmental community to develop legislation to move the country in the right direction and demonstrate leadership on this important issue. It will be the first comprehensive

piece of legislation in this area. Not only will it not place the burden on any one sector, it would allow for the partnering across sectors through the trading system to most effectively meet the required reductions.

The bill we are introducing will propose a ``cap and trade'' approach to reducing greenhouse gases emissions. It would require the promulgation of regulations to limit greenhouse gases emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial and commercial economic sectors. The affected sectors request approximately 85 percent of the overall U.S. emissions for the year 2000. The bill also would provide for the trading of emissions allowances and reductions through the government provided greenhouse gas database, which would contain an inventory of emissions and a registry of reduction.

I thank Senator Lieberman for his commitment and leadership in bringing this piece of legislative initiative. We hope that our colleagues in the Senate and the Administration will work with us to improve upon and ultimately adopt this much needed legislation.

The U.S. is responsible for 25 percent of the worldwide greenhouse gases emissions. It is time for the U.S. government to do its part to address this global problem, and legislation on mandatory reductions is the form of leadership that is required to address this global problem.

Mr. President, the National Academy of Science has said, ``Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.''

Over the past five years, the Commerce Committee has held eight hearings on climate change. Two the last five years, 1998 and 2002, have been the warmest, in terms of average global temperatures, ever recorded. According to a recent report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA, nine of the warmest years have occurred since 1990. As reported in the New York Times on December 31, 2002, many experts think it is more likely than not 2003 will either match or exceed the 1998 average temperature record of 58 degrees Fahrenheit.

Researchers at the University of Texas, Wesleyan University, and Stanford University recently reported in the journal Nature that global warming is forcing species around the world, from California starfish to Alpine herbs, to move into new ranges or alter habits that could disrupt ecosystems. The report states there is ``very high confidence,'' defined as having more than 95 percent of observed changes which were principally caused by climate change, that climate change is already affecting living systems. The end result off these changes could be substantial ecological disruption, local losses in wildlife, and extinction of certain species.

This and many other reports over the years have highlighted time and again the consequences of a warming climate system. We have seen the destruction of over 70 percent of the heat-sensitive corals reefs, the melting of glaciers at unprecedented levels, the increase of wildfires, and the spreading of diseases. A large German insurance company has estimated that global warming could cost $300 billion annually by 2050 in weather damage, pollution, industrial and agricultural losses, and other expenses.

Our international partners, the States, and private industry are reacting to this challenge. For example, California has enacted legislation that will regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. The European Union just recently approved an emissions trading system. The World Bank has estimated that greenhouse gas trading will be a $10 billion market by 2005. Financial ratification of the Kyoto Protocol rests with Russia.

Industry is also paying attention to what's happening. Laws firms and insurance companies are setting up business units to deal with climate- related risks.

Thus far, however, little has actually been accomplished to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States must do something, but it must also do the right thing. Many have focused on what we do not know or the uncertainties are climate change. I prefer a more sound and scientific approach of starting with what is known or given and then proceeding to solve the problem at hand.

While we cannot say with 100 percent confidence what will happen in the future, we do know the mission of greenhouse gases is not healthy for the environment. As many of the top scientists through the world have stated, the sooner we start to reduce these emissions, the better off we will be in the future.

In 2001, Senator Lieberman and I announced our intention to develop legislation to require mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases emissions and provide for the trading of emission allowances. We have been working with industry and the environmental community to develop legislation to move the country in the right direction and demonstrate leadership on this important issue. It will be the first comprehensive

piece of legislation in this area. Not only will it not place the burden on any one sector, it would allow for the partnering across sectors through the trading system to most effectively meet the required reductions.

The bill we are introducing will propose a ``cap and trade'' approach to reducing greenhouse gases emissions. It would require the promulgation of regulations to limit greenhouse gases emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial and commercial economic sectors. The affected sectors request approximately 85 percent of the overall U.S. emissions for the year 2000. The bill also would provide for the trading of emissions allowances and reductions through the government provided greenhouse gas database, which would contain an inventory of emissions and a registry of reduction.

I thank Senator Lieberman for his commitment and leadership in bringing this piece of legislative initiative. We hope that our colleagues in the Senate and the Administration will work with us to improve upon and ultimately adopt this much needed legislation.

The U.S. is responsible for 25 percent of the worldwide greenhouse gases emissions. It is time for the U.S. government to do its part to address this global problem, and legislation on mandatory reductions is the form of leadership that is required to address this global problem.