[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 36 (Monday, April 4, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3149-S3156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 689. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish a 
program to provide assistance to small communities for use in carrying 
out projects and activities necessary to achieve or maintain compliance 
with drinking water standards; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 
FY2011.
  Let me tell you more about this problem. In New Mexico, the geology, 
the make up of the rocks and dirt, results in relatively high levels of 
arsenic in the groundwater. However, over time, New Mexico residents 
have not experienced higher levels of diseases associated with arsenic.
  Be that as it may, the standard is in our future and many small 
communities throughout New Mexico and the west will not be able to meet 
the resulting financial burden. I am sure that if we have to fix our 
water plants to meet the EPA's new standards, some in villages of 100 
people where they have a small water system and no other water source, 
it will create a significant financial burden. Because of this, I 
believe it is important to aid communities in meeting the coming 
standards.
  The financial burden facing many communities and individuals is 
great. The new standards could cost New Mexico communities between $370 
million and $440 million to improve treatment systems, plus $18 million 
a year in operating costs. Albuquerque, NM, is looking at having to 
spend up to $150 million to come into compliance; Rio Rancho is facing 
$60 million in improvements. Many small communities in New Mexico and 
throughout the west are facing increases in their water

[[Page S3150]]

bills of $50 to $90 a month per individual. I need not say that most 
people cannot afford such an increase.
  Most of the technologies needed for water systems to remain in 
compliance with the new requirements are advanced and will require a 
significant increase in the level of training and expertise of the 
public water system operators in New Mexico and throughout the Nation. 
This legislation will help these communities in upgrading their systems 
and training their people.
  We are forcing communities to comply with drinking water standards 
that many believe will not increase public health. The least we can do 
is help them meet the burden.
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement and the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 689

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community Drinking Water 
     Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) drinking water standards proposed and in effect as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act will place a large 
     financial burden on many public water systems, especially 
     those public water systems in rural communities serving small 
     populations;
       (2) the limited scientific, technical, and professional 
     resources available in small communities complicate the 
     implementation of regulatory requirements;
       (3) small communities often cannot afford to meet water 
     quality standards because of the expenses associated with 
     upgrading public water systems and training personnel to 
     operate and maintain the public water systems;
       (4) small communities do not have a tax base for dealing 
     with the costs of upgrading their public water systems;
       (5) small communities face high per capita costs in 
     improving drinking water quality;
       (6) small communities would greatly benefit from a grant 
     program designed to provide funding for water quality 
     projects;
       (7) as of the date of enactment of this Act, there is no 
     Federal program in effect that adequately meets the needs of 
     small, primarily rural communities with respect to public 
     water systems; and
       (8) since new, more protective arsenic drinking water 
     standards proposed by the Clinton and Bush administrations, 
     respectively, are expected to be implemented in 2006, the 
     grant program established by the amendment made by this Act 
     should be implemented in a manner that ensures that the 
     implementation of those new standards is not delayed.

     SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS.

       (a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--Section 1401(14) of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f(14)) is amended in 
     the second sentence by striking ``1452,'' and inserting 
     ``1452 and part G,''.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Safe Drinking Water Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

          ``PART G--ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS

     ``SEC. 1471. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Eligible activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible activity' means a 
     project or activity concerning a small public water system 
     that is carried out by an eligible entity to comply with 
     drinking water standards.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `eligible activity' includes--
       ``(i) obtaining technical assistance; and
       ``(ii) training and certifying operators of small public 
     water systems.
       ``(C) Exclusion.--The term `eligible activity' does not 
     include any project or activity to increase the population 
     served by a small public water system, except to the extent 
     that the Administrator determines such a project or activity 
     to be necessary to--
       ``(i) achieve compliance with a national primary drinking 
     water regulation; and
       ``(ii) provide a water supply to a population that, as of 
     the date of enactment of this part, is not served by a safe 
     public water system.
       ``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     small public water system that--
       ``(A) is located in a State or an area governed by an 
     Indian Tribe; and
       ``(B)(i) if located in a State, serves a community that, 
     under affordability criteria established by the State under 
     section 1452(d)(3), is determined by the State to be--
       ``(I) a disadvantaged community; or
       ``(II) a community that may become a disadvantaged 
     community as a result of carrying out an eligible activity; 
     or
       ``(ii) if located in an area governed by an Indian Tribe, 
     serves a community that is determined by the Administrator, 
     under affordability criteria published by the Administrator 
     under section 1452(d)(3) and in consultation with the 
     Secretary, to be--
       ``(I) a disadvantaged community; or
       ``(II) a community that the Administrator expects to become 
     a disadvantaged community as a result of carrying out an 
     eligible activity.
       ``(3) Program.--The term `Program' means the small public 
     water assistance program established under section 1472(a).
       ``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of 
     the Indian Health Service.
       ``(5) Small public water system.--The term `small public 
     water system' means a public water system (including a 
     community water system and a noncommunity water system) that 
     serves--
       ``(A) a community with a population of not more than 
     200,000 individuals; or
       ``(B) a public water system located in--
       ``(i) Bernalillo or Sandoval County, New Mexico;
       ``(ii) Scottsdale, Arizona;
       ``(iii) Mesquite or Washoe County, Nevada; or
       ``(iv) El Paso County, Texas.

     ``SEC. 1472. SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this part, the Administrator shall establish a 
     program to provide grants to eligible entities for use in 
     carrying out projects and activities to comply with drinking 
     water standards.
       ``(2) Priority.--Subject to paragraph (3), the 
     Administrator shall award grants under the Program to 
     eligible entities based on--
       ``(A) first, the financial need of the community for the 
     grant assistance, as determined by the Administrator; and
       ``(B) second, with respect to the community in which the 
     eligible entity is located, the per capita cost of complying 
     with drinking water standards, as determined by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(3) Small communities.--In making grants under this 
     section, the Administrator shall ensure that not less 20 
     percent of grant funds provided for each fiscal year are used 
     to carry out eligible activities in communities with a 
     population of less than 50,000 individuals.
       ``(b) Application Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--An eligible entity that seeks to receive 
     a grant under the Program shall submit to the Administrator, 
     on such form as the Administrator shall prescribe (not to 
     exceed 3 pages in length), an application to receive the 
     grant.
       ``(2) Components.--The application shall include--
       ``(A) a description of the eligible activities for which 
     the grant is needed;
       ``(B) a description of the efforts made by the eligible 
     entity, as of the date of submission of the application, to 
     comply with drinking water standards; and
       ``(C) any other information required to be included by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(3) Review and approval of applications.--
       ``(A) In general.--On receipt of an application under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall forward the 
     application to the Council.
       ``(B) Approval or disapproval.--Not later than 90 days 
     after receiving the recommendations of the Council under 
     subsection (e) concerning an application, after taking into 
     consideration the recommendations, the Administrator shall--
       ``(i) approve the application and award a grant to the 
     applicant; or
       ``(ii) disapprove the application.
       ``(C) Resubmission.--If the Administrator disapproves an 
     application under subparagraph (B)(ii), the Administrator 
     shall--
       ``(i) inform the applicant in writing of the disapproval 
     (including the reasons for the disapproval); and
       ``(ii) provide to the applicant a deadline by which the 
     applicant may revise and resubmit the application.
       ``(c) Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Federal share of the cost of carrying out an eligible 
     activity using funds from a grant provided under the Program 
     shall not exceed 90 percent.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive the requirement 
     to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of carrying out an 
     eligible activity using funds from a grant provided under the 
     Program if the Administrator determines that an eligible 
     entity is unable to pay, or would experience significant 
     financial hardship if required to pay, the non-Federal share.
       ``(d) Enforcement and Implementation of Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Administrator shall not enforce any standard for drinking 
     water under this Act (including a regulation promulgated 
     under this Act) against an eligible entity during the period 
     beginning on the date on which the eligible entity submits an 
     application for a grant under the Program and ending, as 
     applicable, on--
       ``(A) the deadline specified in subsection (b)(3)(C)(ii), 
     if the application is disapproved and not resubmitted; or
       ``(B) the date that is 3 years after the date on which the 
     eligible entity receives a grant under this part, if the 
     application is approved.
       ``(2) Arsenic standards.--No standard for arsenic in 
     drinking water promulgated under this Act (including a 
     standard in any regulation promulgated before the date of 
     enactment of this part) shall be implemented or enforced by 
     the Administrator in any State until the earlier of January 
     1, 2006 or such

[[Page S3151]]

     date as the Administrator certifies to Congress that--
       ``(A) the Program has been implemented in the State; and
       ``(B) the State has made substantial progress, as 
     determined by the Administrator in consultation with the 
     Governor of the State, in complying with drinking water 
     standards under this Act.
       ``(e) Role of Council.--The Council shall--
       ``(1) review applications for grants from eligible entities 
     received by the Administrator under subsection (b);
       ``(2) for each application, recommend to the Administrator 
     whether the application should be approved or disapproved; 
     and
       ``(3) take into consideration priority lists developed by 
     States for the use of drinking water treatment revolving loan 
     funds under section 1452.

     ``SEC. 1473. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $1,900,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 690. A bill to amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century to provide for the Highway Trust Fund additional funding for 
Indian reservation roads, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 690

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``American Indian Reservation 
     Transportation Improvement Program Act''.

     SEC. 2. INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1101(a)(8)(A) 
     of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 
     Stat. 112) is amended by striking ``of such title'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``of that title--
       ``(i) $225,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(ii) $275,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003;
       ``(iii) $330,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(iv) $360,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(v) $390,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(vi) $420,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(vii) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(viii) $480,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.''.
       (b) Additional Authorization of Contract Authority for 
     States With Indian Reservations.--Section 1214(d)(5)(A) of 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 
     202 note; 112 Stat. 206) is amended by inserting before the 
     period at the end the following: ``, $3,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $4,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 and 2007, and $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2008 and 2009''.
       (c) Indian Reservation Road Bridges.--Section 202(d)(4)(B) 
     of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(B) Reservation.--Of the amounts'' and 
     all that follows through ``to replace,'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Funding.--
       ``(i) Reservation of funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there is authorized to be appropriated from 
     the Highway Trust Fund $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2009 to carry out planning, design, engineering, 
     preconstruction, construction, and inspection of projects to 
     replace,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Availability.--Funds made available to carry out 
     this subparagraph--

       ``(I) shall be available for obligation in the same manner 
     as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1; and
       ``(II) shall not be used to pay any administrative 
     costs.''.

     SEC. 3. INDIAN RESERVATION RURAL TRANSIT PROGRAM.

       Section 5311 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Indian Reservation Rural Transit Program.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       ``(B) Reservation.--The term `reservation' means--
       ``(i) an Indian reservation in existence as of the date of 
     enactment of this subsection;
       ``(ii) a public domain Indian allotment; and
       ``(iii) an Indian reservation in the State of Oklahoma that 
     existed at any time before, but is no longer in existence as 
     of, the date of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(C) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation, acting through the Administrator of the 
     Federal Highway Administration.
       ``(2) Program.--The Secretary shall establish and carry out 
     a program to provide competitive grants to Indian tribes to 
     establish rural transit programs on reservations or other 
     land under the jurisdiction of the Indian tribes.
       ``(3) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish and maintain intra-agency cooperation 
     between the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal 
     Transit Administration in--
       ``(i) administering tribal transit programs funded by the 
     Federal Highway Administration; and
       ``(ii) exploring options for the transfer of funds from the 
     Federal Highway Administration to the Federal Transit 
     Administration

[[Page S3152]]

     for the direct funding of tribal transit programs; and
       ``(B) establish and maintain working relationships with 
     representatives of regional tribal technical assistance 
     programs to ensure proper administration of ongoing and 
     future tribal transit programs carried out using Federal 
     funds.
       ``(4) Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     for each fiscal year, of the amount made available to carry 
     out this section under section 5338 for the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall use $20,000,000 to carry out this 
     subsection.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 692. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain public land 
in northwestern New Mexico by resolving a dispute associated with coal 
preference right lease interests on the land; to the Committee on 
Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 692

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bisti PRLA Dispute 
     Resolution Act''.

     SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF COAL PREFERENCE RIGHT LEASE 
                   APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, if any of the coal preference right lease applications 
     captioned NMNM 3752, NMNM 3753, NMNM 3754, NMNM 3755, NMNM 
     3835, NMNM 3837, NMNM 3918, NMNM 3919, NMNM 6802, NMNM 7235, 
     and NMNM 8745 are withdrawn by the holder or holders of the 
     applications, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
     the Bureau of Land Management (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``Secretary''), shall issue under section 4(a)(2) to each 
     such holder or holders a certificate of bidding rights (in 
     such form and manner as provided for under regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary under the Mineral Leasing Act 
     (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.)) that constitutes the combined fair 
     market value, as determined under section 3, of the coal 
     reserves for each coal preference right lease application 
     withdrawn by the holder.
       (b) Relinquishment.--The relinquishment of all rights 
     associated with the coal preference lease applications 
     withdrawn shall be effective on the date of the issuance of 
     the certificate of bidding rights under section 4(a)(2).
       (c) No Adjudication.--The withdrawals and issuances 
     required under subsection (a) shall occur without any further 
     adjudication of coal preference right lease applications by 
     the Secretary.

     SEC. 3. METHOD FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, this section shall apply to the issuance of a 
     certificate of bidding rights under section 4(a)(2).
       (b) Value of Coal Reserves.--
       (1) In general.--The fair market value of the coal reserves 
     of any coal preference right lease application withdrawn 
     under section 2(a) shall be determined by the panel 
     established under paragraph (2).
       (2) Panel.--
       (A) Establishment.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     panel to determine the fair market value of the coal reserves 
     of any coal preference right lease applications withdrawn 
     under section 2(a).
       (B) Membership.--The panel shall be composed of 3 
     representatives, of whom--
       (i) 1 representative shall be appointed by the Secretary;
       (ii) 1 representative shall be appointed by the holder of 
     the preference right lease application; and
       (iii) 1 representative shall be appointed by the Governor 
     of the State of New Mexico.
       (3) Mineral appraiser.--The Secretary shall contract with a 
     qualified coal reserve appraiser to assist the panel 
     established under paragraph (2)(A) in determining the fair 
     market value of a coal reserve.
       (4) Supplemental information.--In determining the fair 
     market value of a coal reserve, the panel may supplement any 
     information provided to the panel, as the panel determines to 
     be appropriate.
       (5) Determination.--Not later than 75 days after the date 
     on which the panel is established under paragraph (2)(A), the 
     panel shall submit to the Secretary the determination of the 
     panel with respect to the fair market value of a coal reserve 
     of any coal preference right lease application withdrawn by 
     the holder.

     SEC. 4. ISSUANCE OF BIDDING RIGHTS TO HOLDERS OF RELINQUISHED 
                   PREFERENCE RIGHT LEASE APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not later than 120 days after the withdrawal of a coal 
     preference right lease application, the Secretary shall--
       (1) accept the relinquishment of the rights associated with 
     the coal preference right lease application; and
       (2) issue a certificate of bidding rights in the amount of 
     the fair market value determined under section 3.
       (b) Enforcement.--The duties of the Secretary under this 
     section shall be considered nondiscretionary and enforceable 
     in a mandamus proceeding brought under section 1361 of title 
     28, United States Code.

     SEC. 5. USE OF EXCHANGE BIDDING RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law--

[[Page S3153]]

       (1) a certificate of bidding rights issued under section 
     4(a)(2) shall--
       (A) be subject to such procedures as the Secretary may 
     establish pertaining to notice of transfer and accountings of 
     holders and their balances;
       (B) be transferable by the holder or holders of the 
     certificate of bidding rights in whole or in part; and
       (C) constitute a monetary credit that, subject to paragraph 
     (2), may be applied, at the election of the holder or holders 
     of the certificate of bidding rights, against--
       (i) rentals, advance royalties, or production royalties 
     payable to the Secretary under Federal coal leases; and
       (ii) bonus payments payable to the Secretary in the 
     issuance of a Federal coal lease or Federal coal lease 
     modification under the coal leasing provisions of the Mineral 
     Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.); and
       (2) in a case in which a certificate of bidding rights 
     issued under section 4(a)(2) is applied by the holder or 
     holders of the certificate of bidding rights as a monetary 
     credit against a payment obligation under a Federal coal 
     lease, the holder or holders--
       (A) may apply the bidding rights only against 50 percent of 
     the amount payable under the lease; and
       (B) shall pay the remaining 50 percent as provided for 
     under the lease in cash or cash equivalent.
       (b) Payment Under Lease Obligations.--Any payment of a 
     Federal coal lease obligation by the holder or holders of a 
     certificate of bidding rights issued under section 4(a)(2)--
       (1) shall be treated as money received under section 35 of 
     the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191); but
       (2) shall be credited and redistributed by the Secretary 
     only as follows:
       (A) 50 percent of the amount paid in cash or its equivalent 
     shall be--
       (i) distributed to the State in which the lease is located; 
     and
       (ii) treated as a redistribution under section 35 of the 
     Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191).
       (B) 50 percent of the amount paid through a crediting of 
     the bidding rights involved shall be treated as a payment 
     that is subject to redistribution under that section to the 
     Reclamation and Miscellaneous Receipts accounts in the 
     Treasury.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
        Santorum, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Allen, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 691. A bill to modify the prohibition on recognition by United 
States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, 
or commercial names; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 691

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION.

       Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 
     101(b) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-
     88) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``by a designated national''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period ``that was used in 
     connection with a business or assets that were confiscated 
     unless the original owner of the mark, trade name, or 
     commercial name, or the bonafide successor-in-interest has 
     expressly consented'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``by a designated 
     national or its successor-in-interest'';
       (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e);
       (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall 
     apply only if the person or entity asserting the rights knew 
     or had reason to know at the time when the person or entity 
     acquired the rights asserted that the mark, trade name, or 
     commercial name was the same as or substantially similar to a 
     mark, trade name, or commercial name that was used in 
     connection with a business or assets that were 
     confiscated.''; and
       (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking ``In 
     this section:'' and all that follows through ``(2) The term'' 
     and inserting ``In this section, the term''.

[[Page S3154]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN:
  S. 693. A bill to provide for judicial review of national security 
letters issued to wire and electronic communications service providers; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has been nearly 4 years since the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the days, weeks, and months 
since that day, the American people have braced themselves for the 
possibility of another terrorist attack on our homeland. After all, we 
know all too well that al-Qaida is a stealthy, sophisticated, and 
patient enemy, and that its leadership is extremely motivated to launch 
another devastating attack on American soil and American citizens.
  In fact, outside the United States, al-Qaida and affiliates of al-
Qaida have continued to be enormously active, responsible for numerous 
terrorist attacks on foreign soil in the last few years:
  2001 (Dec.): Man tried to denote shoe bomb on flight from Paris to 
Miami.
  2002 (April): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 
dead, including 14 German tourists.
  2002 (May): Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 
14, including 11 French citizens.
  2002 (June): Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, 
Pakistan, killing 12.
  2002 (Oct.): Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing 
one.
  2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, 
mostly Australian citizens.
  2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16.
  2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at 
housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  2003 (May): Four bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, 
and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
  2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott 
Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
  2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia housing 
compound, killing 17.
  2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked two 
synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
  2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British 
consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.
  2004 (March): Ten terrorists bombs exploded almost simultaneously 
during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring 
more than 1,400.
  2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, 
Saudi Arabia, killing 22.
  2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, 
Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, 
Indonesia, killed nine.
  2004 (Dec.): Terrorists enter the U.S. Consulate in Jiddah, Saudi 
Arabia, killing nine (including 4 attackers).
  It is precisely because al-Qaida is so aggressive, so motivated, and 
so demonstrably hostile to America, that I am so grateful that, to 
date, al-Qaida still has not successfully launched another terrorist 
attack on our own soil. There are undoubtedly many reasons for this. 
First and foremost, I am profoundly thankful to the brave men and women 
of our Armed Forces, who fight the terrorists abroad so that we do not 
have to face them at home. I also firmly believe that our efforts to 
strengthen anti-terrorism and law enforcement tools right here at home 
have much to do with this record of success and peace in our homeland 
to date.
  It is within this important context that a Senate Judiciary Committee 
hearing tomorrow morning will commence a new round of discussions about 
the USA PATRIOT Act. As I explained in an op-ed published in the 
Washington Times just this morning, I welcome that hearing, because the 
American people deserve an honest, responsible, and fair discussion to 
ensure that we are indeed fulfilling our dual responsibilities to 
protect national security and civil liberties alike.
  Unfortunately, the debate about the USA PATRIOT Act has not always 
met that standard. Last fall, just weeks before the Presidential 
election, we even witnessed false reports in newspapers across the 
country that a Federal court had struck down parts of the act as 
unconstitutional. False reports and scare tactics serve no legitimate 
cause and greatly disserve the American people.
  The war on terrorism must be fought aggressively but consistently 
with the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. Whenever real 
civil liberties problems do arise, we must learn about them right away, 
so that we can fix them swiftly.
  It is for precisely this reason that I have long been concerned about 
false allegations of civil rights deprivations. Every false allegation 
undermines every true allegation, and that hurts us all. After all, 
scaring people about false civil rights deprivations unnecessarily 
divides our Nation and makes no one safer. If anything, false claims 
about civil liberties actually make it harder to monitor real civil 
liberties issues in the future--for the same reason that eventually no 
one listened to the fabled little boy who kept ``crying wolf.''

  After several weeks of negotiation, Congress in 2001 enacted the USA 
PATRIOT Act by overwhelming bipartisan margins--98-1 in the Senate and 
357-66 in the House. At the time, Senators on both sides of the aisle 
agreed that the legislation had struck a careful and wise balance 
between national security and civil liberties.
  The record continues to be strong to this day. As Senator Dianne 
Feinstein at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing during the 
last Congress, ``I have never had a single abuse of the PATRIOT Act 
reported to me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances 
of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and said they had none.''
  The ACLU did allege in a press release last September that a Federal 
court had struck down parts of the USA PATRIOT Act--calling the 
decision ``a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice 
Department.'' See Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 
The litigation is currently on appeal.
  Newspapers across the country immediately repeated the ACLU's 
message. But as legal experts immediately discovered, there were two 
important problems with the allegation: they were attacking the wrong 
person, and the wrong law.
  In fact, the court had actually struck down a law authored by Senator 
Patrick Leahy during the 1980s. That statute balanced the national 
interest in protecting electronic communications privacy against the 
legitimate needs of national security, by establishing a procedure for 
obtaining electronic communications records in certain national 
security investigations through the use of so-called ``national 
security letters.'' The USA PATRIOT Act amended the law to make clear 
that such letters could be issued in terrorism investigations as well.
  So the statute in question was written by Leahy, not Ashcroft. And it 
was the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, not the USA 
PATRIOT Act in 2001. Indeed, the USA PATRIOT Act did not change a 
single word of any provision attacked by that court.
  What's more, in 1986, the ACLU endorsed the Electronic Communications 
Privacy Act. And shortly after that law was approved by the Senate on a 
voice vote and the House by unanimous consent, the chief legislative 
counsel of the ACLU called it a ``significant advancement of privacy 
rights of citizens in the age of new communications technology.''
  None of this stopped the ACLU in 2004, however, from charging that 
the court's ruling was ``the first to strike down any of the vast new 
surveillance powers authorized by the Patriot Act.''
  The ACLU has since backed down and admitted that they had attacked 
the wrong law. As ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer eventually conceded, 
``the provisions that we challenged and that the court objected to were 
in the statute before the Patriot Act was passed. We could have 
raised the same objections before the power was expanded.'' 
Nevertheless, it hurts all of us whenever an allegation about civil 
liberties is discredited--because it makes it that much easier to 
ignore legitimate civil liberties problems that may arise in the 
future.

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

[[Page S3155]]

1986 law was not drafted with sufficient clarity to authorize such 
review.
  Today, I introduce legislation to cure this technical defect, and to 
amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to make explicit the 
availability of judicial review to examine national security letters. 
The legislation is entitled the Electronic Communications Privacy 
Judicial Review and Improvement Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the legislation, as well as a section-by-section 
analysis of the legislation prepared by my office, be printed in the 
Record.
  I hope that this legislation will be enacted in the same bipartisan 
spirit that put both the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the 
USA PATRIOT Act on the books. And I hope that future discussions about 
the war on terrorism, civil liberties, and the USA PATRIOT Act will be 
honest, responsible, and fair.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 693

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``The Electronic 
     Communications Privacy Judicial Review and Improvement Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--Section 2709(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``A wire or electronic communication 
     service provider'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--A wire or electronic communication 
     service provider''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Judicial review.--A wire or electronic communication 
     service provider who receives a request under subsection (b) 
     may, at any time, seek a court order from an appropriate 
     United States district court to modify or set aside the 
     request. Any such motion shall state the grounds for 
     challenging the request with particularity. The court may 
     modify or set aside the request if compliance would be 
     unreasonable or oppressive.''.
       (b) Nondisclosure.--Section 2709(c) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No wire or electronic communication 
     service provider'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--No wire or electronic communication 
     service provider''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Judicial review.--A wire or electronic communication 
     service provider who receives a request under subsection (b) 
     may, at any time, seek a court order from an appropriate 
     United States district court challenging the nondisclosure 
     requirement under paragraph (1). Any such motion shall state 
     the grounds for challenging the nondisclosure requirement 
     with particularity.
       ``(3) Standard of review.--The court may modify or set 
     aside such a nondisclosure requirement if there is no reason 
     to believe that disclosure may endanger the national security 
     of the United States, interfere with a criminal, 
     counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, 
     interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or 
     physical safety of any person. In reviewing a nondisclosure 
     requirement, the certification by the Government that the 
     disclosure may endanger of the national security of the 
     United States or interfere with diplomatic relations shall be 
     treated as conclusive unless the court finds that the 
     certification was made in bad faith.''.

     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS.

       Section 2709(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended 
     by section 2(a), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Enforcement of requests.--The Attorney General may 
     seek enforcement of a request under subsection (b) in an 
     appropriate United States district court if a recipient 
     refuses to comply with the request.''.

     SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Secure Proceedings.--Section 2709 of title 18, United 
     States Code, as amended by sections 2 and 3, is further 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Secure proceedings.--The disclosure of information in 
     any proceedings under this subsection may be limited 
     consistent with the requirements of the Classified 
     Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App).''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Secure proceedings.--The disclosure of information in 
     any proceedings under this subsection may be limited 
     consistent with the requirements of the Classified 
     Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App).''.
       (b) Disclosure to Necessary Persons.--Section 2709(c)(1) of 
     title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(b)(1), 
     is further amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``any person'' the following: ``, 
     except for disclosure to an attorney to obtain legal advice 
     regarding the request or to a persons to whom disclosure is 
     necessary in order to comply with the request,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Any attorney or 
     person whose assistance is necessary to comply with the 
     request who is notified of the request also shall not 
     disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or 
     records under this section.''.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


 the electronic communications privacy judicial review and improvement 
                              act of 2005

       The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 strikes a 
     balance between the important national interest in electronic 
     communications privacy and the legitimate needs of national 
     security and law enforcement. It generally forbids 
     nonconsensual, unauthorized disclosures of private electronic 
     communications by communications providers, while authorizing 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue so-called 
     ``national security letters'' under certain conditions in 
     order to obtain certain kinds of communications records from 
     such providers. The original 1986 law authorized national 
     security letters in foreign counterintelligence 
     investigations; section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended 
     the 1986 Act to explicitly permit the issuance of such 
     letters in international terrorism investigations as well.
       The 1986 Act was authored by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy and 
     approved by the Senate on a voice vote and the House by 
     unanimous consent. It was endorsed by a number of 
     organizations, including civil liberties and privacy 
     advocates. The ACLU's chief legislative counsel and director 
     of its project on technology and privacy called the 
     legislation a ``significant advancement of privacy rights of 
     citizens in the age of new communications technology,'' 
     according to a December 5, 1986 article in the Christian 
     Science Monitor.
       The national security letter provision of the Electronic 
     Communications Privacy Act of 1986 has recently been 
     challenged in federal court. During the course of the 
     litigation, Justice Department attorneys agreed that there 
     should be judicial review of national security letters, and 
     argued that current law already provides for such review. 
     Nevertheless, last September a federal district court in New 
     York struck down the Electronic Communications Privacy Act as 
     unconstitutional because it does not explicitly authorize 
     judicial review. See Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471 
     (S.D.N.Y. 2004). This litigation--which is currently on 
     appeal--presents an important legal dispute concerning 
     whether the Electronic Communications Privacy Act implicitly 
     provides for judicial review of national security letters. It 
     may be helpful for Congress to enact an explicit provision 
     authorizing judicial review, to avoid any ambiguity and to 
     provide clearer guidance to national security letter 
     recipients and parties in litigation in the future.
       Accordingly, the Electronic Communications Privacy Judicial 
     Review and Improvement Act of 2005 responds to the Doe v. 
     Ashcroft litigation by establishing an explicit judicial 
     review provision for national security letters.
       Section 1. Short title.
       Section 2. Judicial review. This provision explicitly 
     authorizes a recipient of a national security letter to seek 
     judicial review in federal court to prevent enforcement of 
     the letter. The provision states that a court may modify or 
     set aside the national security letter if compliance would be 
     unreasonable or oppressive--the same standard that governs 
     grand jury subpoenas. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 
     17(c)(2). Courts have made clear that, under this standard, 
     requests must be relevant to the underlying investigation. 
     See, e.g., U.S. v. R. Enterprises Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 301 
     (1991) (requiring ``reasonable possibility that the category 
     of materials the Government seeks will produce information 
     relevant to the general subject of the grand jury's 
     investigation'').
       This provision also explicitly authorizes a recipient at 
     any time to seek judicial review in federal court to set 
     aside the nondisclosure requirement imposed by the original 
     1986 law. The 1986 Act forbids recipients from disclosing to 
     any person that the FBI has issued the national security 
     letter. This bill provides that a court may modify or set 
     aside the nondisclosure requirement if there is no reason to 
     believe that disclosure may endanger the national security of 
     the United States, interfere with a criminal, 
     counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, 
     interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or 
     physical safety of any person. The provision also provides 
     that, in reviewing a nondisclosure requirement, the 
     certification by the Government that disclosure may endanger 
     of the national security of the United States or interfere 
     with diplomatic relations shall be treated as conclusive 
     unless the court finds that the certification was made in bad 
     faith.
       Section 3. Enforcement of national security letters. This 
     provision authorizes the Attorney General to seek enforcement 
     of a national security letter in federal court if a recipient 
     refuses to comply.
       Section 4. Disclosure of information. This provision 
     establishes that the judicial review proceedings established 
     by this bill may be secured against disclosure pursuant to 
     the provisions of the Classified Information Procedures Act.
       This provision also makes clear that the nondisclosure 
     requirement of the 1986 law does not forbid conversations 
     with the recipient's attorney to obtain legal advice 
     regarding the request, nor does it forbid conversations with 
     persons to whom disclosure would be necessary to comply with 
     the request. All participants in such conversations

[[Page S3156]]

     are forbidden from disclosing the existence of the national 
     security letter, consistent with the requirements of the 
     original 1986 law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COLEMAN:
  S. 694. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to 
provide for a job training grant pilot program; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill I 
introduce today be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 694

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. JOB TRAINING GRANT PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 171 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2916) is amended by striking subsection (d) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(d) Job Training Grant Pilot Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Grants.--The Secretary shall provide grants to 
     qualified job training programs as follows:
       ``(i) Placement grants.--Grants in an amount to be 
     determined by the Secretary shall be provided to qualified 
     job training programs upon placement of a qualified graduate 
     in qualifying employment.
       ``(ii) Retention grants.--An additional grant in an amount 
     to be determined by the Secretary shall be provided to 
     qualified job training programs upon retention of a qualified 
     graduate in qualifying employment for a period of 1 year.
       ``(B) Determination.--In determining the amount of the 
     grants to be provided under subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
     shall consider the economic benefit received by the 
     Government from the employment of the qualified graduate, 
     including increased tax revenue and decreased unemployment 
     benefits or other support obligations.
       ``(2) Qualified job training program.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, a qualified job training program is 1 that--
       ``(A) is operated by a nonprofit or for-profit entity, 
     partnership, or joint venture formed under the laws of--
       ``(i) the United States or a territory of the United 
     States;
       ``(ii) any State; or
       ``(iii) any county or locality;
       ``(B) offers education and training in--
       ``(i) basic skills, such as reading, writing, mathematics, 
     information processing, and communications;
       ``(ii) technical skills, such as accounting, computers, 
     printing, and machining;
       ``(iii) thinking skills, such as reasoning, creative 
     thinking, decision making, and problem solving; and
       ``(iv) personal qualities, such as responsibility, self-
     esteem, self-management, honesty, and integrity;
       ``(C) provides income supplements when needed to eligible 
     participants (defined for purposes of this paragraph as an 
     individual who meets the criteria described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (C) of paragraph (3)) for housing, counseling, 
     tuition, and other basic needs;
       ``(D) provides eligible participants with not less than 160 
     hours of instruction, assessment, or professional coaching; 
     and
       ``(E) invests an average of $10,000 in training per 
     graduate of such program.
       ``(3) Qualified graduate.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     a qualified graduate is an individual who is a graduate of a 
     qualified job training program and who--
       ``(A) is 18 years of age or older;
       ``(B) had in either of the 2 preceding taxable years 
     Federal adjusted gross income not exceeding the maximum 
     income of a very low-income family (as defined in section 
     3(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437a(b)(2))) for a single individual; and
       ``(C) has assets of not more than $10,000, exclusive of the 
     value of an owned homestead, indexed for inflation.
       ``(4) Qualifying employment.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, qualifying employment shall include any permanent 
     job or employment paying annual wages of not less than 
     $18,000, and not less than $10,000 more than the qualified 
     graduate earned before receiving training from the qualified 
     job training program.''.

                          ____________________