Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senators for their willingness to recognize this problem and to assist New Mexico. public access to government research data

Mr. BINGAMAN. Is my understanding correct that the entire $1,500,000 in this amendment will go directly to the New Mexico HIDTA?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the supportive words of my colleagues on this important matter of national security. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am very concerned about a provision in the FY 1999 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriation bill regarding military assistance for the Baltic nations that, according to the Committee report, is intended to accelerate the integration of the Baltic States into NATO. Although the Administration has assured the Congress that consideration of the Baltic nations for membership in NATO would proceed in a deliberate fashion in consultation with our NATO allies subject to the procedures already established, designating military assistance to the Baltic nations in accordance with the language contained in the Committee report would circumvent those assurances. I wish to advise my colleagues that the allocation of any military assistance provided in this bill to the Baltic nations will not assure their admission into NATO. Mr. President, I recall that during the recent debate on enlarging NATO last April, many senators expressed their concern about extending our military commitments beyond the limits which are already straining our ability to meet worldwide contingencies. I believe that providing military assistance to the Baltic nations in order to accelerate their membership into NATO could lead us into a de facto security commitment to that region that might strain our resources even further, and therefore, be harmful to our national security interests as well as those of our NATO allies. Many of my colleagues here in the Senate as well as the distinguished Dr. Henry Kissinger who testified last spring before the Armed Services Committee question our ability to respond effectively to military contingencies in the Baltic region. In addition, Mr. President, I am very concerned about the state of relations between the United States and Russia at this vulnerable time in international relations. Providing military assistance to the Baltic nations for the express reason of accelerating their membership in NATO is likely to exacerbate the uneasy state of our relations with the current Russian government as well as many influential Russian leaders who oppose that nation's current leadership. I do not believe it is in our interest to create unnecessarily greater difficulties with Russia than we already have. I believe this provision of the bill as discussed in the Committee report could cause significant problems with Russia and unfounded expectations among the Baltic nations for whom there is no assured membership in NATO. I have spoken with Senators Leahy, Hutchison, and Roberts about my concerns and they share these sentiments.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in enthusiastic support of the statement made by Senator Roth concerning the U.S.-Japan relationship and, furthermore, to ask our colleagues to support this resolution. As you are aware, I have been integrally involved over the years with many of my colleagues in ascertaining the obstacles and opportunities that exist between the United States and Japan. I have offered ongoing support for a cooperative, forward-looking bilateral relationship that is defined by transparency, access, equity and reciprocity. Given the current environment in East Asia and the potential for political economic instability, I believe the U.S.-Japan relationship to be one of our country's most important in that region, and worthy of constant and precise attention. In the future, much as in the past, Japan will be both partner and competitor, and we must ensure that we maintain our support for this relationship while we recognize both its possibilities and its limitations. The resolution submitted by Senator Roth and I identifies the level of science and technology interaction that has developed between the United States and Japan over the last decade, and gives a number of suggestions as to where we should go in the future. Specific reference is made to the U.S.-Japan Science and Technology Agreement, which is now being re-negotiated by our two governments. Let me describe in concise terms what I see as important in this regard. Significantly, the United States and Japan are, at present, cooperating in a range of projects as diverse as Global Change, Earthquake Disaster Mitigation, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Global Information Infrastructure, Space Cooperation, Thermonuclear Experimentation, Deep Sea Drilling, and Sustainable Development. Individually, these projects include the participation of nearly every department and agency in the U.S. government, and all have been initiated and have prospered as a result of the U.S.-Japan Science and Technology Agreement. All of these projects will grow even more substantially with the renewal of the agreement. Clearly this is something to be encouraged. Significantly, all of these projects mentioned above will benefit not only the United States and Japan, but also the developed and developing countries in the world--many of which are eager for the knowledge and technology that derive from our two countries' cooperative activities. This interaction has already provided innumerable advantages to the international community, and can only provide even more in the future. With certain conditions, it deserves our wholehearted support. The current resolution outlines some, but not all of these conditions. As specific examples, we need to ensure that the cooperative interaction between the United States and Japan results in balanced and easily accessible flows of information between the United States and Japan, and that all data from this interaction be easily available to other scientists and engineers in the international community. International access to private sector laboratories in Japan needs to be improved. Divisions that exist between ministries in Japan--fragmentation that creates serious obstacles for research projects that include national universities and government research laboratories--must be made less evident. Effective mechanisms that allow the U.S. and other countries to participate in Japanese research projects need to be identified and obstacles that preclude this interaction eliminated. A more complete development of common regulations and standards should be pursued, and dual use and export control policies clarified. Questions relating to intellectual property rights have existed far too long and should be rectified. Finally, the obvious relationship that exists between science, technology and trade relations should be recognized, and understandings reached between the two governments on important, cross-cutting issues. While these aforementioned problems should not prevent the U.S.-Japan Science and Technology Agreement from being renewed, our concerns should be made apparent during negotiations. I would argue that any new agreement must satisfy three criteria: First, it must recognize that serious structural and procedural assymetries still exist between the two countries and that they must be resolved; Second, it must provide freedom for scientists and engineers to interact and complete their research as free as possible from government interference; Finally, it must recognize that the results that derive from U.S.- Japan science and technology cooperation has the potential to alleviate many of the problems we face in the world today and, as such, should be easily diffused into the international community. Much of our current science and technology cooperation with Japan rests on a single but extremely important premise: the U.S. economic and national security interest depends upon its ability to complete fundamental research in critical areas, and then encourage innovation that will result in competitive advantage. Where this research might once have been done in isolation and without data input from other countries, it now requires the capacity to access information and technologies being developed elsewhere. While the United States has been inattentive to the importance of increased expenditures on science and technology, Japan has not. While we still lead in many technologies, we will not do so in perpetuity. Science and engineering are the archetypical endeavors of the current international society: individuals and ideas come together in an effort to improve the collective welfare of the global community at large. We must recognize this dynamic, and encourage it every way we can. Let me emphasize that the results of research in laboratories across the world are not abstractions. As America's productivity, competitiveness, and economic performance--indeed, its very economic security--depends upon cooperative research and development with Japan and other countries, these results provide tangible advantages for families in New Mexico and every other state in the union. The car you drive, the home you live in, the appliances you use, the food you eat, the air you breathe--all of these derive from research and development programs that were undertaken yesterday. These programs should be a national priority. To this end, it is essential that we further solidify the cooperative linkages that exist between our two countries, to find ways to leverage increasingly scarce funds, to combine diverse and complementary streams of ideas and technologies, and to provide mutual advantages to our respective societies and the international community as a whole. Although some would deny the obvious synergies that exist between the United States and Japan at this time, it is not in our national interest to do so. The question is no longer whether these synergies will exist, but under what conditions they will exist. Interaction between our two countries exists on a scale far beyond what many once considered possible, and it will only grow as scientific and technological interaction between the two countries increases. We should take real pride in this development, just as we must, at the same time, carefully consider the path we will follow in the future. While the current resolution is non-binding, it does reflect our desire to engage Japan in an ongoing, cooperative, and reciprocal relationship. Senator Roth and I consider the U.S.-Japan Science and Technology Agreement to be an interactive arrangements of the highest importance, and we hope other colleagues will join us in our support for its renewal.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will have my staff get a copy to the manager immediately. I thought we had done that before.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to talk about a critical energy issue facing the country today that calls for urgent action. That is the price collapse that we have seen for crude oil. We are near historically low prices for crude oil in the world, in real terms, due in part to the economic turmoil in Asia. This is leading to several serious problems. First, we are threatened with the loss of a major domestic industry. When the wellhead price of crude oil is in the vicinity of $10 a barrel, as it has been recently in the Permian basin and elsewhere in the country), we drive producers of oil from marginal wells out of the business. There are about a half million marginal wells in this country. The employment from operating those wells puts food on the table for a lot of families all over the country, and we need to be concerned about their economic future. Second, low prices mean we lose royalty and tax revenues that fund public education. Since October 1997, the drop in crude oil prices has triggered a revenue shortfall in the States totaling $819 million. That's close to a billion dollar loss for public education in less than one year. In New Mexico, counties and towns are canceling planned school construction and renovation projects. Third, our national energy security is threatened. During the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, we imported 30 percent of our oil. Today, it's 56 percent. Even before the current price decline, the Energy Information Administration was predicting that imports would go to 68 percent by 2015. With lower prices, though, EIA's projection rises to 75 percent oil import dependence. Finally, international stability is put at risk by current oil prices. Earlier this month, the IMF approved $11.2 billion in aid for Russia. $2.9 billion of that amount was to make up for shortfalls in Russia's export earnings. Over half of Russia's oil is exported, but the benchmark price for that oil has declined by 25 percent in this year alone. Continued low world oil prices could undo whatever gains in stability are accomplished in Russia by IMF funding. The same is true of other major oil-producing countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia. The Senate has recently focused on the problems confronting farmers growing out of collapsing world commodity prices. When it considered the agriculture appropriations bill, the Senate agreed to help address this urgent farm crisis by providing the Secretary of Agriculture with $500 million, under an emergency appropriation, to help agricultural producers, including family farmers, to stay in business. We need to do the same thing for the domestic oil industry. The amendment that I have sent to the desk does just that. It is an emergency appropriation to allow the Administration to buy back all the oil the government has sold out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for budgetary purposes since the Gulf War. That amount comes to 28 million barrels. We sold this oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay for other unrelated spending on appropriations bills. In effect, we were using one of the country's prime energy security tools as a giant ATM machine. The Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and I led an effort last year and this to put a stop to such sales. I am gratified that the Committee on Appropriations is not proposing any further sales this year. But the energy security concerns that I have mentioned, particularly our continuing and growing reliance on foreign oil imports, make repurchase of the oil for the SPR a good idea. Also, at current world oil prices, the oil we put back will cost less than what we sold it for. At an estimated cost of $15 per barrel delivered to the SPR, this amendment would require a $420 million emergency appropriation. The use of an emergency appropriation in this case is well justified. It is somewhat less than what the Senate has done for farmers who are facing similar financial losses from the same sort of world economic forces and collapsing prices. And there can be no doubt that the economic implosion that threatens the oil-producing regions of the Southwest, if we allow current trends to continue, qualifies as an emergency. This amendment gives the kind of help that does the most good here in the United States and internationally. It gets excess oil off the market. This would have a significant beneficial impact on wellhead prices, but not enough to trigger a price spike for refined oil products. I think this is a good amendment. I think it is consistent with our concern for our long-term energy security. I think it is a very good investment. This is the time when we should, as a country, be thinking about replenishing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I hope very much the managers of the bill will be able to accept this amendment and that we will be able to add it to this piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am very pleased to add Senator Domenici as a cosponsor. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield the remaining time to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Alaska for his strong support of this amendment and his leadership on this issue over many years. Let me also indicate the strong support that we have had from the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the National Stripper Well Association. I thank them for the good work they have done in developing the facts that support what we are doing here. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the President and chairman of those two organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Truancy Prevention and Juvenile Crime Reduction Act of 1998. In doing so, I would like to discuss the importance of this measure and how I believe the issue of truancy, as it relates to juvenile crime, has long been neglected. More people are realizing that truancy often is the first sign of trouble in the life of a young person. It is the first indication that a young person may be on a sad track to a life of crime, drugs, and other serious problems. Of course, in most every case, it is an early indication that a young person has no interest in school and inevitably will drop out. This is especially sad because many truants and eventual drop-outs are two and a half times more likely than high school graduates to be on welfare and twice as likely to be unemployed or to be paid at the lower end of the wage scale. Truancy is the top-ranking characteristic of criminals--more common than such factors as coming from a single-parent family and being abused as a child. High rates of truancy directly are linked to high daytime crime rates, including violence, burglary and vandalism. As much as 44 percent of violent juvenile crime takes place during school hours, and as much as 75 percent of children ages 13 to 16 who are arrested and prosecuted for crimes are truants. It is startling to know that some cities report as many as 70 percent of daily student absences are unexcused, and the total number of absences in a single city can reach 4,000. Moreover, society pays a very heavy social and economic price due to truancy. Only 34 percent of inmates have completed high school education, and we all are well aware of the staggering costs associated with incarcerating an individual. Sadly, as many as 17 percent of youth under the age of 18 that enter adult prisons have not completed eighth grade, 75 percent have not completed 10th grade. Put in graphic economic terms, it is estimated that truants and high school drop outs cost the nation $240 billion in lost earnings and foregoing taxes over their lifetimes, and the cost of associated crime control is staggering and perhaps immeasurable. In most cases the parents may not be aware their child is truant, and we have to do a better job of notifying them when a child is not in school. Most studies indicate that when parents, schools, law enforcement and community leaders all work together to prevent truancy, to intervene at its early stages, and to create meaningful accountability, we can increase school attendance and reduce daytime crime rates. Because truancy is usually an indicator of later delinquency and criminal behavior, we have one of the best opportunities to identify the kids that are on track to later problems and to intervene before the problems get too serious. The unfortunate truth, however, is that is addressing juvenile crime, we have not focused enough attention on this specific issue, and although prevention programs can work, there is a lack of targeted federal funding for effective truancy prevention. The Departments of Justice and Education both have recognized truancy prevention as a key reducing juvenile crime. The Departments jointly have issued a series of reports called ``Youth out of the Education Mainstream,'' that shine a positive spotlight on various proven comprehensive, collaborative truancy models from around the country. Once such program is the Daytime Curfew Program in Roswell, New Mexico, and the Truancy Intervention Project in Fulton County, Georgia, administered by Judge Glenda Hatchett. Another successful program included in this Act is the Grade Court, which is Farmington, New Mexico, administered by Judge Paul Onuska. All of these programs integrate parental involvements with schools, law enforcement, judiciary, and other community stakeholders in a collaborative effort to reduce truancy and juvenile crime. This Act authorizes $25 million per year targeted at building upon integral partnerships between local government, schools, law enforcement, and the courts. Without a doubt, $25 million is a very small price to pay when you consider the dividends we expect when young people stay in school and out of trouble. In general, this Act provides incentives for partnerships between schools and local government, including local law enforcement to build parental involvement in situations where they may be useful and parental responsibility when necessary. The Act also provides incentives for these partnerships to develop meaningful penalties for young people and even their parents when truancy has become a chronic problem, and to allow schools the means to develop in-school alternatives to suspension and expulsion for chronic truants. This Act also will give schools the resources to acquire the technological tools to notify parents automatically in the event of an unexcused absence. The Act is endorsed by the Youth Law Center, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Network for Youth, which has more than 500 community youth-serving organizations and personnel nationwide all committed to helping keep our young people on track and keeping our communities peaceful. I thank these organizations for their assistance and know this Act will be enthusiastically received by many more important organizations. I urge my Senate colleagues to support the bill for passage this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Truancy Prevention and Juvenile Crime Reduction Act of 1998. In doing so, I would like to discuss the importance of this measure and how I believe the issue of truancy, as it relates to juvenile crime, has long been neglected. More people are realizing that truancy often is the first sign of trouble in the life of a young person. It is the first indication that a young person may be on a sad track to a life of crime, drugs, and other serious problems. Of course, in most every case, it is an early indication that a young person has no interest in school and inevitably will drop out. This is especially sad because many truants and eventual drop-outs are two and a half times more likely than high school graduates to be on welfare and twice as likely to be unemployed or to be paid at the lower end of the wage scale. Truancy is the top-ranking characteristic of criminals--more common than such factors as coming from a single-parent family and being abused as a child. High rates of truancy directly are linked to high daytime crime rates, including violence, burglary and vandalism. As much as 44 percent of violent juvenile crime takes place during school hours, and as much as 75 percent of children ages 13 to 16 who are arrested and prosecuted for crimes are truants. It is startling to know that some cities report as many as 70 percent of daily student absences are unexcused, and the total number of absences in a single city can reach 4,000. Moreover, society pays a very heavy social and economic price due to truancy. Only 34 percent of inmates have completed high school education, and we all are well aware of the staggering costs associated with incarcerating an individual. Sadly, as many as 17 percent of youth under the age of 18 that enter adult prisons have not completed eighth grade, 75 percent have not completed 10th grade. Put in graphic economic terms, it is estimated that truants and high school drop outs cost the nation $240 billion in lost earnings and foregoing taxes over their lifetimes, and the cost of associated crime control is staggering and perhaps immeasurable. In most cases the parents may not be aware their child is truant, and we have to do a better job of notifying them when a child is not in school. Most studies indicate that when parents, schools, law enforcement and community leaders all work together to prevent truancy, to intervene at its early stages, and to create meaningful accountability, we can increase school attendance and reduce daytime crime rates. Because truancy is usually an indicator of later delinquency and criminal behavior, we have one of the best opportunities to identify the kids that are on track to later problems and to intervene before the problems get too serious. The unfortunate truth, however, is that is addressing juvenile crime, we have not focused enough attention on this specific issue, and although prevention programs can work, there is a lack of targeted federal funding for effective truancy prevention. The Departments of Justice and Education both have recognized truancy prevention as a key reducing juvenile crime. The Departments jointly have issued a series of reports called ``Youth out of the Education Mainstream,'' that shine a positive spotlight on various proven comprehensive, collaborative truancy models from around the country. Once such program is the Daytime Curfew Program in Roswell, New Mexico, and the Truancy Intervention Project in Fulton County, Georgia, administered by Judge Glenda Hatchett. Another successful program included in this Act is the Grade Court, which is Farmington, New Mexico, administered by Judge Paul Onuska. All of these programs integrate parental involvements with schools, law enforcement, judiciary, and other community stakeholders in a collaborative effort to reduce truancy and juvenile crime. This Act authorizes $25 million per year targeted at building upon integral partnerships between local government, schools, law enforcement, and the courts. Without a doubt, $25 million is a very small price to pay when you consider the dividends we expect when young people stay in school and out of trouble. In general, this Act provides incentives for partnerships between schools and local government, including local law enforcement to build parental involvement in situations where they may be useful and parental responsibility when necessary. The Act also provides incentives for these partnerships to develop meaningful penalties for young people and even their parents when truancy has become a chronic problem, and to allow schools the means to develop in-school alternatives to suspension and expulsion for chronic truants. This Act also will give schools the resources to acquire the technological tools to notify parents automatically in the event of an unexcused absence. The Act is endorsed by the Youth Law Center, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Network for Youth, which has more than 500 community youth-serving organizations and personnel nationwide all committed to helping keep our young people on track and keeping our communities peaceful. I thank these organizations for their assistance and know this Act will be enthusiastically received by many more important organizations. I urge my Senate colleagues to support the bill for passage this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I know the Chairman and Ranking Member are aware of the proposal in the state of New Mexico to start up a new park and ride transit system that would serve the cities of Los Alamos, Pojoaque, Espanola, and Santa Fe. I first brought this exciting proposal to the senators' attention last September. Is the Chairman also aware that last August the State of New Mexico ran a two-week trial run of the proposed transit system and that the demonstration was an enormous success, with over 1500 riders per day and an estimated reduction of 750 vehicles?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I don't require the yeas and nays. I would like to be reported as voting against the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment is a simple amendment to correct a longstanding error in what is known as the Lanham Act, the statute that controls what can and what cannot be trademarked. In doing so, let me indicate my appreciation to Senator Leahy and Senator Inouye for their support and, of course, my colleague Senator Domenici. Mr. President, the Lanham Act of 1946, the primary statute governing what can and cannot be trademarked, protects flags, coats of arms, and official insignia of the United States, States, municipalities, and foreign nations. It essentially says those cannot be trademarked. However, the act neglects to protect the insignias which belong to American Indian tribes. I believe strongly that this was an oversight. It is time we corrected the oversight. Significantly, I want to be clear that in offering this amendment, I do not intend to affect existing trademark rights that may already have been conferred under this act. This amendment also does not have any affect on any current existing, non-trademarked usage of these tribal insignia but only sets out to prohibit the trademarking of tribal insignia in the same way a State's, municipality's, foreign nation's, and the United States' insignia currently is protected. A key point that must be made here is that tribal governments are recognized as forms of government listed under the Act and should be treated in the same way that State, municipal, county, and of course the United States governments are considered. The Lanham Act originally was passed in 1946, and at that time, there was not as much recognition of the governmental status that federally-recognized Indian tribes hold. Today, however, we understand more than ever that tribal governments are sovereign and should be respected as such. Thus, it is an appropriate time to include federally recognized tribes for protection under the Lanham Act. Significantly, tribal insignia often are considered sacred by a respective Indian tribe, and for that reason they should be prohibited from trademark. The Lanham Act protects from trademark anything that would disparage a belief. For example, if someone wanted to trademark a crucifix, Star of David, or Madonna and Child, in such a way that would disparage any one of those significant symbols, the trademark office is directed by law to deny that application for trademark. However, there are is no similar protections for the many symbols that American Indian people hold very sacred. For example, the Zia pueblo, which is located in New Mexico, holds very sacred a symbol they refer to as the ``sun symbol.'' This symbol is probably familiar to many people because it appears on the flag of the State of New Mexico. It is a very popular symbol among businesses and artisans. The Pueblo of Zia generally does not take particular issue with the use of the symbol unless there is an attempt to have the symbol trademarked, the use of which would disparage their religious beliefs. Clearly they have a real interest in seeing that someone else does not come along and trademark the insignia that the tribe has always claimed as its own. Unless you are a tribal member, you could not appreciate the significance of the symbol. In fact, Zia Pueblo holds the symbol so sacred that it would be against their religious beliefs to disclose to anyone outside of the tribe how they use the symbol in their sacred rituals. Indeed, applications have been submitted to the Office of Patent and Trademarks, and each time an application is submitted, the Pueblo must contest the application. This involves substantial legal costs to the Pueblo, and the Pueblo Tribe is not in a financial circumstance where it can take on those legal costs in an indefinite future. The Pueblo is located in a very isolated, desolate area of the state and has very high unemployment. I admire the Pueblo because they hold fast the centuries-old traditions and beliefs in spite of that great economic hardship. They are a non-gaming tribe and have few resources for water treatment facilities, schools or other vital services. Nonetheless, they are willing to contest the trademarking of a symbol that they hold very sacred. The problem is pervasive among all twenty- two tribes in New Mexico and among all American Indian tribes nationwide. Yet we have a statute in place that protects every form of government, even foreign nations, but it does not protect American Indian governments. By simply inserting ``federally recognized Indian tribes'' in a list that already includes ``United States,'' ``States,'' ``municipality,'' and ``foreign nation,'' my amendment finally will offer protection from trademark to tribes the same protection that already is conferred upon any other form of government. My amendment does not affect any existing trademark rights that may already have been conferred under the Lanham Act. What we are saying here is that we should take the Lanham Act where it provides for exceptions and says that you cannot trademark the insignia of the United States, States, municipalities, and foreign nations. We are saying we should assert federally recognized Indian tribes as another one of the categories that enjoys this same protection. To me, it is a very straightforward amendment. I see no real basis for anyone opposing the amendment. I hope that it will be agreed to. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me just clarify. When you are talking about the take-home pay for the court-appointed counsel, you are talking about the amount of funds they take with which to pay for their law firm's ability to participate in the case. I think that is clearly a figure that bears very little resemblance to what the U.S. attorney gets in salary and the paycheck that he takes home at the end of each month. I think you are trying to put an artificial limit on what the court- appointed counsel can get, which I think is a real disservice to the criminal justice system. If we are going to continue with the notion that we are going to have court-appointed counsel for people who are accused of crimes and who can't afford their own counsel, we have to have some reasonable way of compensating them and not expect that court-appointed counsel to work for nothing half of the time, or more, during each month. Mr. President, based on my understanding of the amendment, I oppose the amendment. I understand that Senator Leahy is opposed to the amendment, but he is not able to be here right now to make a statement. I think this will artificially limit the amount of work that court-appointed counsel are able to do on behalf of criminal defendants. To that extent, I think it subverts the criminal justice system. I oppose it.