Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to express my support for John Negroponte to be the first Director of National Intelligence, DNI. I have the utmost respect for Ambassador Negroponte and confidence that he will excel in this position.

It is apparent that there is a need to improve our Nation's intelligence capabilities. The passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, by creating the position of Director of National Intelligence, is an important step in achieving this goal. Creating centralized leadership in the intelligence community will provide better management of capabilities and produce common standards and practices across the foreign and domestic intelligence divide. The position of DNI will better allow the intelligence community to set priorities and move resources where they are most needed. The position of DNI is going to be difficult and demanding. I believe Ambassador Negroponte's experience and character make him an excellent choice to take on this vast responsibility.

From 1960 to 1997 Ambassador Negroponte was a member of the Career Foreign Service, serving at eight different posts in Asia, Europe, and Latin America. He has been Ambassador to Honduras, Mexico, and the Philippines. Ambassador Negroponte also served as Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs and as Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security affairs.

More recently, Mr. Negroponte distinguished himself as ambassador to the United Nations, during the difficult time immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Furthermore Mr. Negroponte last year became the first American Ambassador to Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. In this role he played an important role in moving the nation of Iraq towards a democratic and stable future.

Ambassador Negroponte has a long and distinguished career during his more than 40 years of service to this

country. During that time he faced many challenges and difficult situations. I have the highest expectations that he will take on the assignment as Director of National Intelligence with the same dedication he has shown in the past. Under his leadership, I believe America will have the intelligence capability it so urgently needs to fight and win the continuing global war on terror.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

I ask for 10 seconds.

I ask the Senator, is this the first time the Senator from Massachusetts has been for something that the Republican House of Representatives is for?

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and eleven other Senators, I rise to introduce the ``Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act,'' a bill to convert the annual budget and appropriations process to a two-year cycle and to enhance oversight of federal programs.

Our most recent experience with the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act shows the need for a biennial appropriations and budget process. That one bill clearly demonstrated Congress is incapable of completing the budget, authorizing, and appropriations process on an annual basis. That 1,000 plus paged bill contained nine of the regular appropriations bills.

Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a two-

year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable to the American people.

Moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process enjoys very broad support. President Bush has supported a biennial budgeting process. Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Bush also proposed a biennial appropriations and budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff, OMB Director, and House Budget Committee Chairman, has advocated a biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former OMB and CBO Director Alice Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the past two decades. The Majority Leader is a co-sponsor of this legislation.

Vice President Gore's National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial appropriations and budget cycle.

A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient, and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget process consumes three years: one year for the Administration to prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget.

Today, I want to focus just on the Congressional budget process, the process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization legislation, and multiple appropriation bills. The record clearly shows that last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, we consistently fail to complete action on multiple appropriations bills, to authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines.

While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process, the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization bill, and finally on the appropriations bill.

A few years ago, I asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to update and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on the budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue, reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions. CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with 1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate. In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the budget.

If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly debating the budget throughout the authorizing, budgeting, and appropriations process, just imagine how confused the American public is about what we are doing. The result is that the public does not understand what we are doing and it breeds cynicism about our government.

Under the legislation I am introducing today, the President would submit a 2-year budget and Congress would consider a 2-year budget resolution and 2-year appropriation bills during the first session of a Congress. The second session of the Congress would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills and for oversight of government agencies.

Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a two year basis. For most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law and Congress does not change these laws on an annual basis. The only component of the budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or discretionary, accounts.

The most predictable category of the budget are these appropriated, or discretionary, accounts of the federal government. Much of this spending is associated with international activities or emergencies. Because most of this funding cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a biennial budget is no less deficient than the current annual process. My bill does not preclude supplemental appropriations necessary to meet these emergency or unanticipated requirements.

In 1993 I had the honor to serve as co-Chairman on a Joint Committee that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator Byrd testified before that Committee that the increasing demands put on us as Senators has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are too busy to adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation is designed to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with respect to the oversight of Federal programs and activities.

Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it should be. Our authorizing committees are increasingly crowded out of the legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of the biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining federal programs and developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of the budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time and opportunity to provide oversight, review and legislate changes to federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in the second year.

Mr. President, a biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary to make much better decisions. Under the current annual budget process we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of focusing on how best and most efficiently we should spend the taxpayers' money. By moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan, budget, and appropriate more effectively, strengthen oversight and watchdog functions, and improve the efficiency of government agencies.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and eleven other Senators, I rise to introduce the ``Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act,'' a bill to convert the annual budget and appropriations process to a two-year cycle and to enhance oversight of federal programs.

Our most recent experience with the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act shows the need for a biennial appropriations and budget process. That one bill clearly demonstrated Congress is incapable of completing the budget, authorizing, and appropriations process on an annual basis. That 1,000 plus paged bill contained nine of the regular appropriations bills.

Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a two-

year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable to the American people.

Moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process enjoys very broad support. President Bush has supported a biennial budgeting process. Presidents Clinton, Reagan and Bush also proposed a biennial appropriations and budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff, OMB Director, and House Budget Committee Chairman, has advocated a biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former OMB and CBO Director Alice Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the past two decades. The Majority Leader is a co-sponsor of this legislation.

Vice President Gore's National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial appropriations and budget cycle.

A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient, and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget process consumes three years: one year for the Administration to prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget.

Today, I want to focus just on the Congressional budget process, the process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization legislation, and multiple appropriation bills. The record clearly shows that last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, we consistently fail to complete action on multiple appropriations bills, to authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines.

While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process, the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization bill, and finally on the appropriations bill.

A few years ago, I asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to update and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on the budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue, reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions. CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with 1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate. In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the budget.

If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly debating the budget throughout the authorizing, budgeting, and appropriations process, just imagine how confused the American public is about what we are doing. The result is that the public does not understand what we are doing and it breeds cynicism about our government.

Under the legislation I am introducing today, the President would submit a 2-year budget and Congress would consider a 2-year budget resolution and 2-year appropriation bills during the first session of a Congress. The second session of the Congress would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills and for oversight of government agencies.

Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a two year basis. For most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law and Congress does not change these laws on an annual basis. The only component of the budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or discretionary, accounts.

The most predictable category of the budget are these appropriated, or discretionary, accounts of the federal government. Much of this spending is associated with international activities or emergencies. Because most of this funding cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a biennial budget is no less deficient than the current annual process. My bill does not preclude supplemental appropriations necessary to meet these emergency or unanticipated requirements.

In 1993 I had the honor to serve as co-Chairman on a Joint Committee that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator Byrd testified before that Committee that the increasing demands put on us as Senators has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are too busy to adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation is designed to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with respect to the oversight of Federal programs and activities.

Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it should be. Our authorizing committees are increasingly crowded out of the legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of the biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining federal programs and developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of the budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time and opportunity to provide oversight, review and legislate changes to federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in the second year.

Mr. President, a biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary to make much better decisions. Under the current annual budget process we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of focusing on how best and most efficiently we should spend the taxpayers' money. By moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan, budget, and appropriate more effectively, strengthen oversight and watchdog functions, and improve the efficiency of government agencies.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, NM for the school's No. 2 ranking in The Princeton Review's 2006 edition of the Nation's ``best value'' colleges. New Mexico Tech is an outstanding school and I am very proud of what they have accomplished. This is a well deserved recognition for the excellent work being done by the faculty and students at this fine university.

The New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, known to New Mexicans as New Mexico Tech, was originally founded in 1889 as the New Mexico School of Mines. At that time the Territorial Legislature, wanting to boost New Mexico's economy, decided to establish a School of Mines to train young mining engineers. Silver and lead ores taken from the nearby Magdalena Mountains were processed nearby and the new School of Mines would allow young mining engineers to train near the eventual site of their work. The New Mexico school of mines opened with one building, two professors, and seven students.

Over the years, their mission has expanded to say the least. Today the enrollment at this university exceeds 1,800 students from different parts of the country and the world. New Mexico Tech is an outstanding research university, recognized for their excellence

as a leader in many areas of research, including homeland security, hydrology, astrophysics, atmospheric physics, geophysics, information technology, geosciences, energetic materials engineering, and petroleum recovery. Students come to tech for its outstanding academic reputation, hands-on laboratory learning experiences, opportunities for employment in one of their many research facilities, and its beautiful Southwestern setting.

In the past, I have strongly supported New Mexico Tech and have helped them secure defense and homeland security appropriations funding. In return, they have provided the country with first rate research giving American defense and homeland security planners' better technology to protect military personnel and civilians from attack. They have been on the forefront of homeland security research, antiterrorism efforts, and bringing new job opportunities to the central New Mexico region. The school's hard work and record of success has made it easy for me to convince my colleagues that New Mexico Tech is a good investment. I am very pleased with the dynamic coming out of this wonderful school and I encourage them to keep up the good work.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a article entitled ``New Mexico Tech Second on `Best Value' College List'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday, April 26, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the status of the Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 program.

For further information, please contact Clint Williamson at 202-224- 7556 or David Marks at 202-228-6195.

Subcommittee on National Parks

Mr. Thomas. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 28, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 242, a bill to establish four memorials to the Space Shuttle Columbia in the State of Texas; S. 262, a bill to authorize appropriations to the Secretary of the Interior for the restoration of the Angel Island Immigration Station in the State of California; S. 336, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a study of the feasibility of designating the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail as a national historic trail; S. 670, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez and the farm labor movement; S. 777, a bill to designate Catoctin Mountain Park in the State of Maryland as the ``Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area'', and for other purposes; and H.R. 126, a bill to amend Public Law 89-366 to allow for an adjustment in the number of free roaming horses permitted in Cape Lookout National Seashore.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Brian Carlstrom at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 19, at 10 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony concerning offshore hydrocarbon production and the future of alternate energy resources on the outer Continental Shelf. Issues to be discussed include: recent technological advancements made in the offshore exploration and production of traditional forms of energy, and the future of deep shelf and deepwater production; enhancements in worker safety, and steps taken by the offshore oil and gas industry to meet environmental challenges. Participants in the hearing will also address ways that the Federal Government can facilitate increased exploration and production offshore while protecting the environment. New approaches to help diversify the offshore energy mix will also be discussed.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact: Shane Perkins at 202-224- 7555.

subcommittee on water and power

Mr. President, I recognize and praise the outstanding contribution of Delta Group Electronics and Canberra Aqulia of Albuquerque, NM, and New Mexico State University to ongoing efforts to protect our service men and women from improvised explosive devices, IEDs, in Iraq.

One of the greatest threats to our military personal deployed in the global war on terrorism is the IED. These devices used by terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are the single greatest cause of American casualties. These remote controlled bombs are used to attack American forces individually and as part of larger assaults on patrols and convoys.

While the up-armoring of military vehicles has provided a partial solution to the problem of combating IEDs, a better solution is to prevent IEDs from exploding at all. The IED countermeasures equipment, ICE, being fielded by the U.S. Marine Corps in Iraq is designed to accomplish this goal. ICE will jam the radio signal which is used to detonate many of these devices.

Delta Group Electronics and Canberra Aquila are an integral part of making ICE available to our soldiers in Iraq. Aqulia Technologies Group Inc. has been located in New Mexico since 1971. Delta Group Electronics has been operating since 1987.

These companies have been instrumental in delivering ICE to our Armed Forces in Iraq at one-third the cost of previous IED countermeasure systems. I thank them for helping to insure that our brave soldiers fighting the global war on terror are safer from these kinds of attacks. I have no doubt that both of these companies in the future will continue to contribute significantly to the national security of our great Nation.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee On Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 14, at 10 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 388, a bill that would direct the Secretary of Energy to promote the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity, provide credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems and establish a national greenhouse gas registry.

Because of the limited time available for this hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact: Shane Perkins at 202-224- 7555.

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. President, I would like to extend my best wishes to Carol DiBattiste, whose last day as deputy administrator of the Transportation Security Administration was April 8, 2005. Carol DiBattiste is truly a living textbook version of a ``public servant.'' Her record is one of service to country, of a strong leader who gives unstintingly of herself to make sure that America's defenses against terrorism are as strong as possible. I know that Carol's dedication to this mission and strong leadership will be sorely missed by her colleagues at TSA and the Department of Homeland Security.

Ms. DiBattiste arrived at TSA in March of 2003 after more than 33 years of public service and two years at a private law firm. As the new Chief of Staff at TSA, she brought with her a sense of urgency that fit well in an agency committed to the security of the Nation's transportation system. Ms. DiBattiste immediately put her unique experience and skills to work as a member of the TSA leadership team as it rushed to meet its mission.

Hard work has characterized Ms. DiBattiste's public career. She enlisted in the Air Force in 1971, earned her B.A. degree magna cum laude in sociology/criminal justice from LaSalle University in 1976, her J.D. degree from Temple University School of Law in 1981, and her Master of Laws degree from Columbia University School of Law in 1986.

Before retiring from the Air Force as a major in 1991, her assignments included serving as chief prosecutor for the Pacific Region, faculty of the Air Force Judge Advocate General School, and chief recruiting attorney for the Air Force. Going forward, Ms. DiBattiste's career took her to the Department of Justice where she was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and director of the Department's Office of Legal Education. In 1993, Ms.

DiBattiste served with the Department of the Navy, where she was principal deputy general counsel, the service's second-highest ranking lawyer. In that role, she was responsible for resolving several high- profile matters, including the sexual harassment scandal dubbed ``Tailhook'' and the U.S. Naval Academy cheating case.

In 1994, Ms. DiBattiste returned to the Department of Justice as the director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. In that capacity, she was instrumental in investigating the Oklahoma City Bombing, Unabomber, Olympic Park Bombing and TWA 800 airliner crash. Between 1997 and 1999, she served with distinction as Deputy United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. In 1999, Ms. DiBattiste accepted the nomination of former President Clinton and served as Under Secretary of the Air Force where, among other duties, she chaired a task force that brokered an anti-harassment action plan for the Department of Defense. Prior to joining TSA, Ms. DiBattiste was a partner at Holland & Knight LLP, where her practice areas involved corporate diversity counseling, government relations, and criminal and civil litigation.

Last July, TSA Chief of Staff DiBattiste became Deputy Administrator DiBattiste, a move that again recognized her many talents and leadership abilities. Deputy Administrator DiBattiste and Administrator David Stone have spearheaded the efforts to make TSA a strong and mature performance based Federal agency. But even more importantly, Ms. DiBattiste made it her mission at TSA to continuously recruit new leaders and make sure that every TSA employee--from the screeners to the executive team--understood their role in securing our Nation. Finally, Carol made sure that each of those employees understood that: they were valued, their opinions mattered, and that what they were doing was important, even vital to achieving TSA's mission. For that, we all owe Deputy Administrator DiBattiste a great deal of gratitude.

It is instructive to read what some of her friends and colleagues at TSA have to say about Ms. DiBattiste. From Tom Blank, the Chief Support Systems Officer: ``Many times the sky was actually falling and when it was, Carol was in charge of getting it put back up there again--all the while with the greatest sense of humor there is.'' From Theresa Bertucci, Assistant Administrator for Intermodal Programs: ``She always pushed the entire organization towards a level of excellence and commitment, and never asked more of any person that worked alongside her than she asked of herself.'' And addressing Ms. DiBattiste, Tammy M. Meckley, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Transportation Security Policy, said: ``Leadership is what every employee craves, thanks for keeping all of us well fed.''

In an interview with TSA's newsletter, the Sentinel, Ms. DiBattiste said of the agency's efforts, ``Without question, America is safer since the stand-up of TSA, and TSA has done an excellent job of protecting the homeland. . . .'' Then typically, she added that ``there is a lot more to do.''

Mr. President, I realize we have much to accomplish here in the United States Senate, but I felt it was important that we thank this great American. I wish to congratulate Deputy Administrator Carol DiBattiste on a distinguished and selfless career; and in closing, offer the thought that the nation would be well-served if sometime in the future she once again rejoined the ranks of public servant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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