Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Child Safety and Home Protection Act of 2004, to provide a limited tax credit for individuals who purchase a gun safe to store firearms in their homes. Under this legislation, taxpayers would receive a 25 percent credit up to $250 for the cost of purchasing, shipping, and installing a gun safe. We have seen passionate debates in the Senate on political issues involving guns, but there is no dispute about the importance of preventing firearms accidents and theft. We all want to make sure guns do not fall into the hands of people who would mishandle them and cause accidental harm, or who intend to abuse them for criminal purposes. Responsible gun owners share those concerns and take safety issues seriously. The firearms industry has responded by offering a variety of devices designed to enhance secure storage and safe use of firearms. Gun safes have demonstrated their effectiveness in stopping unauthorized access to their contents, not only protecting valuable guns but also preventing their accidental or criminal misuse. With more than 200 million privately-owned firearms in the United States, this Nation clearly has an interest in encouraging safe gun storage. The Child Safety and Home Protection Act of 2004 serves that goal by allowing individuals to keep a little bit of their own hard- earned dollars to make a key investment in gun safety through the purchase and installation of a gun safe. I say to all my colleagues: If you believe, as I do, that the right to keep and bear arms carries with it a responsibility to use firearms safely and lawfully, I hope you will join me in supporting this important measure to promote secure gun storage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. We support the amendment. It is an excellent, necessary amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004.'' This bipartisan legislation co- sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, increases the focus on the contribution that specialty crops add to the United States agricultural economy. This bill specifically provides the proper and necessary attention to many challenges faced throughout each segment of the industry. Most do not realize the significance of specialty crops and their value to the U.S. economy and the health of U.S. citizens. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, fruits and vegetables alone added $29.9 billion to the U.S. economy in 2002. This figure does not even include the contribution of nursery and other ornamental plant production. The specialty crop industry also accounts for more than $53 billion in cash receipts for U.S. producers, which is close to fifty-four percent of the total cash receipts for all crops. A surprising fact to some is that my State of Idaho is the Nation's fourth largest producer of specialty crops. Idaho proudly boasts production of cherries, table grapes, apples, onions, carrots, several varieties of seed crops and of course one of our most notable specialty crops, potatoes. Maintaining a viable and sustainable specialty crop industry also benefits the health of America's citizens. Obesity continues to plague millions of people today and is a very serious and deepening threat not only to personal health and well-being, but to the resources of the economy as well. This issue is now receiving the necessary attention at the highest levels, and specialty crops will continue to play a prominent role in reversing the obesity trend. The ``Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act'' will also provide a stronger position for the U.S. industry in the global market arena. This legislation promotes initiatives that will combat diseases both native and foreign that continue to be used as non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports by foreign governments. Additionally, provisions in this bill seek improvements to Federal regulations and resources that impede timely consideration of industry sanitary and phytosanitary petitions. This bill does not provide direct subsidies to producers like other programs. This legislation takes a major step forward to highlight the significance of this industry to the agriculture economy, the benefits to the health of U.S. citizens, and the need for a stable, affordable, diverse, and secure supply of food. Although we near the end of the 108th Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration now to consider this comprehensive and necessary legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004.'' This bipartisan legislation co- sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, increases the focus on the contribution that specialty crops add to the United States agricultural economy. This bill specifically provides the proper and necessary attention to many challenges faced throughout each segment of the industry. Most do not realize the significance of specialty crops and their value to the U.S. economy and the health of U.S. citizens. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, fruits and vegetables alone added $29.9 billion to the U.S. economy in 2002. This figure does not even include the contribution of nursery and other ornamental plant production. The specialty crop industry also accounts for more than $53 billion in cash receipts for U.S. producers, which is close to fifty-four percent of the total cash receipts for all crops. A surprising fact to some is that my State of Idaho is the Nation's fourth largest producer of specialty crops. Idaho proudly boasts production of cherries, table grapes, apples, onions, carrots, several varieties of seed crops and of course one of our most notable specialty crops, potatoes. Maintaining a viable and sustainable specialty crop industry also benefits the health of America's citizens. Obesity continues to plague millions of people today and is a very serious and deepening threat not only to personal health and well-being, but to the resources of the economy as well. This issue is now receiving the necessary attention at the highest levels, and specialty crops will continue to play a prominent role in reversing the obesity trend. The ``Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act'' will also provide a stronger position for the U.S. industry in the global market arena. This legislation promotes initiatives that will combat diseases both native and foreign that continue to be used as non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports by foreign governments. Additionally, provisions in this bill seek improvements to Federal regulations and resources that impede timely consideration of industry sanitary and phytosanitary petitions. This bill does not provide direct subsidies to producers like other programs. This legislation takes a major step forward to highlight the significance of this industry to the agriculture economy, the benefits to the health of U.S. citizens, and the need for a stable, affordable, diverse, and secure supply of food. Although we near the end of the 108th Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration now to consider this comprehensive and necessary legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to express a grave concern about today's announcement concerning a new threat to America's flu vaccine supply--and to urge that firm and decisive action is needed to meet this potential deadly threat. First, the facts as we know them: Earlier this morning, the California-based Chiron Corporation announced that British regulators had unexpectedly imposed a 3-month suspension of operations of its Liverpool plant, citing unspecified manufacturing problems. What does this mean? Mr. President, I believe today's announcement may prove to have worldwide and deadly consequences. This is because Chiron's Liverpool facility is today one of only two major manufacturers of flu vaccine worldwide, and it supplies approximately one-half of the total U.S. flu vaccine supply. More specifically, if Chiron is unable to ship its vaccine this year, the U.S. will lose approximately 46 million doses of flu vaccine, just under half of the anticipated supply of about 100 million doses. Ideally, as many as 185 million doses would be needed to protect all Americans who are at risk. This gives you some idea of the parameters of the problem. Because flu vaccine is produced seasonally and cannot easily be accelerated on short notice, and because the annual flu season typically begins in October--the month we are now in--this announcement effectively deals a body blow to U.S. preparedness as we enter this year's flu season. As the chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am especially concerned about the effects of this development on America's senior population, who account for over 90 percent of the approximately 36,000 American flu deaths each year. Indeed, just last week the Aging Committee held a hearing to examine ways of improving flu preparedness and vaccination rates. At our hearing, Chiron president and CEO testified that Chiron was on track to deliver its full complement of flu vaccine this year. According to initial accounts, today's announcement from the British Government came as an alarming surprise, both to Chiron itself and to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which itself had conducted reviews of Chiron's operations in recent months. Time will tell, of course, but there is no question that today's developments have caught the world public health community off guard. So what can be done? First, I am very encouraged that FDA, CDC, and the NIH have moved swiftly today to convene emergency meetings of top vaccine experts to confer with their British counterparts and to seek assistance from the other major vaccine manufacturer, Aventis. I understand that Secretary Tommy Thompson has already dispatched a team to England to address this crisis. I believe these discussions are extremely important. Of course, safety must always be our paramount consideration. Nevertheless, considering Chiron's critical role in flu vaccine production, coupled with the deadly worldwide threat that confronts us, I urge U.S. and British scientists and officials to do everything in their power to correct whatever problems might exist in time to permit shipment of at least some of Chiron's vaccine this year. Second, I believe it is imperative that Federal authorities act swiftly to guarantee that, if there is to be a sharp drop in vaccine supplies, priority distribution go first to America's elderly and to the young children, as well as certain other especially vulnerable populations. Third, today's alarming announcement is a wake-up call that better long-term flu preparedness is imperative. As we heard at last week's hearing, this is especially true in light of the fact that scientists now believe that a return of an especially strong pandemic strain of flu is overdue. Scientific progress is being made in a number of promising areas, among them options for developing cell-based alternatives to today's egg-based technology. I am also encouraged that the administration in recent months has made substantial progress in its pandemic preparedness planning. In addition, Senator Evan Bayh and I introduced legislation earlier this year to further address some of these longer-term issues. For example, our legislation, S. 2038, would encourage an increase in vaccine production capacity by offering a tax credit for companies to invest in the construction or renovation of production facilities and for the production of new and improved vaccines. Our legislation also contains provisions to encourage greater volume of vaccine production, as well as to improve outreach and education about the importance of flu vaccination. Finally, I want to close by noting that perhaps the single most important reason today's announcement is so potentially devastating is the simple fact that we have only two manufacturers for flu vaccine. Stop and think about that. In a country as great and as rich as ours, with our medical science as advanced as it is, we rely only on two companies to produce this vaccine. Why? In part, for example, it is because in recent years vaccine companies, in trying to guess what the market is going to be and to produce for the market, lost well over $120 million and simply could not take those kinds of losses. That is why Senator Evan Bayh and I introduced legislation to try, again, to resolve this problem. Why? Again, flu is a worldwide killer, and the need for vaccine is very clear. Yet the market has dwindled to a point that the pullout of just one company, as was announced today, devastates a worldwide supply of vaccine. An additional factor underlying this problem, as in so many other sectors, is the issue of tort liability. The risk of lawsuit is so great today that some of these companies are simply closing their shops and walking away. Today is not the time to discuss this particular issue in great detail, but as we move forward we need to ask ourselves, can we put the American population at risk simply because we have developed such a litigious society that everybody has to sue? When they do that, we find ourselves, as the announcement today found us, dramatically wanting for tens of millions of Americans who may this year not receive the vaccinations they need. Is that a risk that is acceptable, or is that a risk that is too high? There is no question in my mind, and there is no question in the minds of the scientists in public health, that flu is a killer. Last year, 36,000 Americans died as a result of the flu or conditions stemming from it. Once again, I commend the swift response of Secretary Thompson and others. I hope this grave situation can successfully be addressed. If it is, many will be saved. We do not yet know all the facts, and again, safety is paramount, but if the American Government and the British Government can perhaps come to some degree of accord regarding acceptable and safe development and production standards between ourselves and Great Britain, thousands of Americans and others worldwide may yet receive the vaccine they need. This is a critical issue, and it is an issue that will play out in the coming days. But whatever transpires, I believe this Congress, the CDC, the FDA, and all who are involved in this issue must clearly prioritize vaccine distribution first for our very elderly, our very vulnerable, and our youngest citizens--those who are the greatest potential victims of this tragic illness. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern that the rights of U.S. lumber producers to remedy against unfairly traded imports from Canada have been improperly curtailed by a runaway NAFTA Chapter 19 dispute settlement panel. Because of the significant impact on many of our States, today I am joined by Mr. Baucus, Mr. Chambliss, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wyden for a discussion about the NAFTA Injury Panel and Order of August 31, 2004. On August 31, 2004, this already rogue panel ordered the U.S. International Trade Commission to reverse its earlier rulings that, in fact, the U.S. lumber industry is injured by imports of subsidized and dumped Canadian lumber. In doing so, the NAFTA panel clearly exceeded its authority under U.S. law. As we all know, Chapter 19 panels reviewing U.S. trade cases are to decide issues under U.S. law just like U.S. courts, applying the same legal standards and subject to the same limitations on their jurisdiction and authority. In fact, as it is structured, NAFTA panels have less authority because they do not have the ability to issue injunctions the way federal courts do. As many of my colleagues know, just last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, interpreting Supreme Court precedent, stated explicitly that a Federal court cannot simply reverse an ITC decision and cannot order the ITC to change its ruling from affirmative to negative. However, this is just what the NAFTA panel did in this case--told the United States ITC to change its previous ruling. U.S. courts have long determined that if some aspect of an ITC decision is not adequately supported by the evidence cited by the ITC, the proper action by a court is to remand the case to the ITC for further substantive analysis. Yet, in the lumber case the NAFTA panel expressly told the ITC it could not further analyze the facts and issues before it, but could only issue a new decision consistent with the NAFTA panel's view that the U.S. industry is not threatened with injury. This very action is usurping due process. In other words, the NAFTA panel has effectively tied the hands of U.S. courts and prevented U.S. Federal courts from acting. This is exactly why I voted against NAFTA when it came up for a vote years ago. Simply put, here we go again having an international body, full of individuals who disregard U.S. law, dictating to the U.S. courts how to interpret our own laws. Not on my watch. I ask the rhetorical question, how can this NAFTA ruling be consistent with the requirements of the NAFTA agreement that Chapter 19 panels are to follow U.S. law when reviewing U.S. agency decisions? This ruling, without question, is a fundamental breach of the terms of the agreement--a breach that goes to the very integrity of the NAFTA dispute settlement system itself. The ITC, as it is required by the NAFTA law Congress passed, has complied with the NAFTA panel order to reverse its affirmative threat of injury determination. Thankfully, however, the ITC emphasized that the NAFTA panel had ``violated U.S. law and exceeded its authority as established by the NAFTA [by] failing to apply the correct standard of review and by substituting its own judgment for that of the Commission.'' The Commission further described ``the panel's decisions throughout this proceeding as overstepping its authority, violating the NAFTA, seriously departing from fundamental rules of procedure, and committing legal error.'' My confidence in the NAFTA has always been shaky at best, but today that confidence is completely eroded. The Commission's expressed views on this matter are highly telling and descriptive of the NAFTA panel's over-reaching and exceeding of its authority. I therefore wish to enter in their entirety into the Record the ``Views of the Commission in Response to the Panel Decision and Order of August 31, 2004'' issued by the Commission on September 10, 2004.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as our colleagues know, Senator Durbin and I have introduced S. 2796, pertaining to the legal treatment of certification marks, collective marks, and service marks. Federal law protects all four kinds of marks equally. Specifically, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 and 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1504 provide that service marks, collective marks, and certification marks ``shall be entitled to the protection provided'' to trademarks, except where Congress provides otherwise by statute. However, the clarity of the Federal laws on this point has been confused by a recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Idaho Potato Commission v. M&M Produce Farm and Sales. That decision interpreted the Lanham Act as requiring that certification marks should be treated differently from trademarks with respect to ``no challenge'' provisions. We introduced S. 2796 to underscore the policy that Congress clearly intended in the first place. I ask the distinguished Senator from Illinois, is that not the case?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for his clarification and hope all our colleagues will join us in this effort to protect important public policy interests.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some additional information about the genesis and intent of a bill introduced last week, strengthening and clarifying a provision of the Lanham Act. Specifically, S. 2796 was introduced to clarify that service marks, collective marks, and certification marks are entitled to the same protections, rights, privileges of trademarks. It is my hope that the Congress will act on this measure in short order, and I offer this information to assist my colleagues in evaluating the bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held Wednesday, September 29, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 2378, to provide for the conveyance of certain public land in Clark County, NV, for use as a heliport; S. 2410, to promote wildland firefighter safety; H.R. 1651, to provide for the exchange of land within the Sierra National Forest, CA, and for other purposes; H.R. 2400, to amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure of Guam; H.R. 3874, to convey for public purposes certain Federal lands in Riverside County, CA, that have been identified for disposal; H.R. 4170, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to recruit volunteers to assist with, or facilitate, the activities of various agencies and offices of the Department of the Interior; and Senate Resolution 387, a resolution commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at 202-224-7545, Frank Gladics at 202-224-2878, or Amy Miller at 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I was at that hearing this morning when Henry Kissinger made his presentation, and I was extremely pleased that it was a bipartisan and balanced presentation. Instead of fingers being pointed or accusations being made about what we ought or ought not do in a post-9/11 Commission era, what Henry Kissinger said was, caution. In a political year that is ripe with political innuendo, be careful what you create because you might not like it after the fact, that recreating the intelligence community of this country and of this government is tremendously important, but it needs to be done well so we don't get the wrong results. I think all of us recognize the dysfunctional character of our intelligence community and the results that it yielded, and why there was a 9/11, and why a 9/11 Commission was developed, and why we are working now in the Governmental Affairs Committee to try to craft and change the character of that intelligence community. It was a very positive hearing this morning. I was pleased by the bipartisan approach, which will disallow any candidate out there from opportunistically pointing a finger and saying you are or you are not doing something in the right manner. It was well presented this morning. Measure Read the First Time--S. 2823

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2823 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings on this matter.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank you for that process. What I have just done will result in placing the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--the AgJOBS bill, or S. 2823-- on the calendar for future consideration by this Senate. There is a great deal of work that has not been done by the Senate this year. The issue of immigration reform, especially that affecting well over 1.5 million undocumented agricultural workers of our Nation, is, in my opinion, a critical issue. In a post-9/11 era, what we have said about our country, and what our citizens are saying, is pretty straightforward. They are saying control the borders, identify those who are within, and arrest those who are undocumented or illegal or who might perpetrate harm to this Nation. I agree with those very fundamental principles that retain the character and the integrity of our country. But what we are also finding in a post-9/11 era is that our negligence as a country, our responsibility as legislators in failing to produce a workable immigration policy, has resulted in between 8 million and 12 million undocumented foreign nationals in our country. Many of them--frankly, most of them--are hard-working human beings who have contributed a great deal to our country and to our country's economy. In the area of the agricultural economy, that is especially true. In the agriculture of Idaho and most of our States in the Nation, undocumented workers play a very significant role in the normal processing and functioning of agriculture itself, the production of the food and fiber that make it to the shelves of the supermarkets and the tables of the families across our country. We now attempt policy that tightens our borders, but we also need to recognize our immigration problems will not be solved by simply wanting to penalize. Instead, we need to manage; controlling and shaping a better system; understanding the importance of that workforce to the Nation on the one side, and on the other side, recognizing the sheer humanitarian character and responsibility we have as Senators and as those who form public policy. Last year, on the United States-Mexican border, over 300 people died trying to make it across the border to identify with a job in this country. Many of them died of heat or lack of water in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico near Mexico. That is a tragedy in its own right and a crisis in the making. But it is a tragedy that is a result of bad law that doesn't function well, and a law that will not function well until we adjust it and change it. That is why in working with all the interested groups over the last 5 years, Ted Kennedy, Chris Cannon and Howard Berman in the House, and I have produced the legislation that is at the desk. It has been vetted well. It has the support of a tremendous community of interest, from growers and employers on one side to agricultural workers on the other side. It has the support of a historic, bipartisan, and diverse national coalition. It is a bill that should be considered by this Congress. It is a bill that will pass the Senate because we now have over 60 cosponsors. It is a bill whose time has come, but is it is a bill that possibly will not find time this year simply because of the shortness left in this session and the work that is necessary to be done? I have worked with the leader and will continue to work with the leader to see if we can't find that window of opportunity to vote our expression on this most important issue, this year, sooner rather than later. I have chosen this rule XIV process to make the legislation current at the desk to start the process to see if we might find that window of time in which to debate and vote on what I think is one of America's most important issues: immigration reform, controlling our borders, identifying undocumented people in this country, doing background checks, and the vetting of their character which is necessary to determine whether they are here and constructive, or whether they are here with a destructive thought in mind, a destructive thought against U.S. citizens, as we found on 9/11 a few years ago. Bringing the undocumented out of the shadows not only helps these workers who add to the economy and pay taxes, but it also would help our homeland security. Many of us are determined to deal with this issue now. If we don't deal with this now, there is no question in my mind that I and others will make it a No. 1 issues in the next session of Congress. This is an issue that legislators cannot turn their backs on. It is an issue that cries out for resolution. I believe S. 2823 is a proper solution to a major segment of that very large problem in this country. I thank you and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor on another topic at this moment, but I want to reflect briefly on what my colleague from New York said about the Hispanic community of New York. I would like to speak about the ones of Idaho. They are some of the most upwardly mobile, achieving communities in my State today, with great successes. They are out to become Americans, or are becoming Americans, by their ingenuity, creativity, and their energy. While I don't think they are looking for a handout, they are certainly looking for a hand up, and they are getting that. I am proud of them, and they have every reason to be proud of themselves during this month as we celebrate their heritage.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about energy once again. Here we are now, with record gas and oil prices, and several of the opponents of the energy bill produced by Senator Domenici, myself, and others--my Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle--are now claiming that the bill does little, if it were passed and if it were law, to reduce our dependence upon oil or other fossil fuels. Less dependence is something we all share. First of all, I challenge my Democratic opponents to pass the law. First pass the law, get it into production, see where it takes us, instead of simply carp and carp very loudly about energy prices and dependency on oil, and then do nothing about it except talk in political terms in a very political year. What I am going to suggest and show you in the next few moments about one aspect of the bill--one relatively small aspect of the bill--I think argues that if the bill were law today and if it were allowed to be implemented, it would give us the opportunity to rapidly begin to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels. The one provision I am talking about in the bill by itself could reduce our dependence on gas and other foreign oils by as much as 12 billion gallons. To understand how wrong my Democratic colleagues are on this issue, let's look at the provisions of the bill that would enable loan guarantees to help kick-start the cellulose ethanol industry. Cellulose ethanol could develop very quickly as an industry and have a major impact on rural incomes and the environment as well as our energy security. What is cellulose ethanol? Cellulose ethanol looks, smells, and acts like regular ethanol, but instead of being made from corn, it is made from what we call agricultural residues. Agricultural residues are a part of the plants for which we have no commercial productive use today. When a crop is grown--grain, for example--we use the grain for food, both animal food and human food. Some of the plant is often left on the ground to keep the soil fertile and from eroding. We call it straw. And the rest must be disposed of as a form of residue. Sometimes it is burned, sometimes it is bailed and used for livestock bedding, and a variety of other purposes. But residue is straw from which wheat and barley grow in my State and nearly every other State in the Nation. It is the corn stover, the stalks, the husks, the cobs from the Corn Belt. It is the sugar bagasse or cotton stalks from Florida or Texas. It is that residue that American agriculture produces. Farmers often pay to dispose of this material. We have known for a long time that cellulose in this material can be transformed into hydrocarbons. Now it seems that the technology to do so is closer than ever before. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 21 of this year that Iogen, a Canadian company, had begun to produce cellulose ethanol commercially. That ethanol produced from wheat straw is now being sold and used in small quantities in Ottawa and surrounding areas. The cover of the August 30 issue of Fortune magazine, a magazine I hold in my hand, says ``How to Kick the Oil Habit.'' The article mentions alternative fuels as one of the four ways to kick the habit. It also focuses on Iogen and cellulose ethanol in this article. So cellulose ethanol seems to be on its way. But why should any of us care about this? What does it have to do with our Energy bill? The Energy bill contains a provision that would allow commercial cellulose ethanol production to begin in the United States within a matter of a couple of years. Iogen has partnered with Shell Oil, and together they want to build the world's first full-scale cellulose ethanol production facility right here in the United States. But as long as the Energy bill is stalled, so is this project. A lot of lipservice can be given, but until this Congress acts and until my colleagues on the other side of the aisle line up with us to allow this technology to come on line, there can be a lot of talk, but the dependence on foreign oil will continue. Also stalled today would be an opportunity to begin to fill the gas tanks of Americans with a fuel that would be grown in the heartland of America. Certainly, we have and will continue to use corn-based ethanol, and the Energy bill I talk about would go a long way toward bringing more of that into production. But there is a limit as to how much corn we can dedicate to energy production. On the other hand, with cellulose ethanol, we are not talking about small quantities. This summer, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman announced the results of a study that showed there is enough agricultural residue produced on our farms to support 200 of these types of ethanol plants and that those plants could displace 7 to 10 percent of the gasoline we consume today. That is a reasonable guesstimate. You have heard me right: If we get this industry going by simply using waste materials from America's farms, we could knock almost 10 percent off our gas imports. What does that say as to our ability to negotiate in a world market? It says a great deal because now we have leverage, and the leverage is a product being produced right here at home. This will not happen unless we are able to implement this bill and bring it on board. Just one cellulose ethanol plant would enhance energy security by replacing a gasoline component of the crude oil imports from 2.4 to 2.9 million barrels per year; increase farm income by $25 million per year by creating economic value for residues that currently, as I said, have little to no value or are simply viewed as waste; create economic development by creating over 1,000 new jobs during peak construction, and almost 200 new permanent jobs and about 450 spinoff jobs. That is positive economics when you can talk in those terms, and those terms are not just talk. That is reality if we implement the Energy bill. It would reduce net emissions of carbon dioxide by 355,000 metric tons annually and would reduce emissions of major air components targeted by the Clean Air Act. A mature cellulose ethanol industry based on agricultural residues alone would multiply these benefits: Enhance U.S. energy security by displacing up to 10 to 12 billion gallons of gas annually, which represents 7 to 10 percent of current U.S. gas consumption; provide approximately 200 to 300 rural communities with more jobs and farmers with more income, and certainly a stronger economy for American agriculture; reduce carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions from 65 to 100 million metric tons. We are talking about putting money into U.S. farmers' pockets instead of the pockets of the oil sheiks of the Middle East. About 29 States currently produce ethanol, and those States clearly have the ability to produce cellulose ethanol in a tremendous way. Chart 1 shows the States that are capable of doing that. Can you imagine, instead of having only a few oil-producing States in our Nation, we would have nearly 25 States capable of producing? That is the value of this program, and adding nearly $25 million a year to the local economy. That is what we are talking about with regard to this Energy bill and what it could do. So not only are we talking about that, but our second chart shows what is extremely important, and that is in carbon savings reported by various studies by bringing this kind of production online. Reducing demand on gasoline from foreign oil from 15 to 20 percent creates anywhere from $5 billion to $7.5 billion annually in economic growth in rural America. That is what we are talking about, and that is what I think chart 3 represents so clearly. It is tremendously important. Here is today's gas engines, in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. Here is the diesel hybrid that we are all excited about today in hybrid production, again a decline. Here is the hydrogen fuel cell car. Our President has been leading and talking about the new hydrogen technologies for surface transportation. Then we have today's ethanol engine, today's ethanol fuel cell engine. As a country, we are simply on hold at this moment because for 5 long years this Congress has debated but has refused to pass a comprehensive national energy policy that not only advances these technologies but incentivizes the marketplace to go after these technologies. So when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply say the Energy bill will do nothing for the American consumer, I say politically and in reality, shame on them. They know better. They worked with us in trying to develop this bill over the last 5 years. It has become a bipartisan working piece in a very comprehensive way. Today, I have taken just a small piece of that bill, the cellulose ethanol production capability of this country, and to suggest that it would reduce our dependence by 12 percent or even more, that it would improve American agriculture and put $25 million a year into the heartland of America, oh, my goodness, we cannot as a country look forward in that way, shame on us. I hoped we could have passed a national energy bill this year. We are certainly going to in the future because the American public, I trust, is going to get fed up with paying $2.10 or more a gallon for their fuel and finding themselves increasingly dependent upon the Middle East. That is something the American consumer should not tolerate and that the American politician ought not stall out or block from happening. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a dedicated patriot, sailor, wife and mother: CAPT Kristine Geddings, U.S. Navy. I had the privilege of getting to know Captain Geddings when she served in my office on Capitol Hill as a legislative fellow, and I have continued to follow her career. I am pleased to offer this tribute to her achievements. Before joining the Navy, this remarkable lady spent 15 years as a housewife and mother. As her daughter entered high school, and having gained her Bachelor of Science degree at the University of North Florida, Captain Geddings decided upon a Naval Career, and applied to and was accepted into Officer Candidate School at Newport, RI. At the age of 34, she was one of the oldest cadets to ever graduate from OCS, yet she met all the qualifications, including physical requirements, that were designed for cadets closer to the age of her daughter. By the time her granddaughter Amber commences sixth grade this fall, Captain Geddings will have retired from active duty after 23 years of service in the United States Navy. Captain Geddings has served the Nation and the Navy faithfully and well over these many years. Her personal leadership, intelligence, stewardship, and compassionate commitment to her sailors and the United States Navy mark a career most worthy of our recognition. Captain Geddings' initial assignment was to Patrol Squadron Thirty, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL, where she served both as personnel and legal officer. She next reported to Naval Management Engineering Center, Detachment Jacksonville as a Management Analyst and team leader. During this tour, she completed her Master of Arts in Administration through Central Michigan University. Next, she was assigned to Navy Recruiting District, Jacksonville, FL, where she took on the most challenging assignment in recruiting, the Enlisted Programs Officer. Seeking the next most challenging job in recruiting, she accepted the job of executive officer of the recruiting station in New Orleans, LA. Finally, in 1998, Captain Geddings assumed command of Navy Recruiting District, Richmond, VA, where she led 192 recruiters and support personnel in 42 recruiting stations spread over 5 States to be named Navy Recruiting Command District of the Year, bronze. On her watch during these years as a Navy recruiter, the Navy won its ``Battle for Talent.'' Because of the efforts of recruiters like Captain Geddings, the Navy did more than just maintain the status quo. They brought the Navy a high quality sailor, and because of that high quality sailor, the Navy's retention, readiness, and quality of life were improved. Captain Geddings accepted orders to Naples, Italy on the staff of COMFAIRMED in 1989. That very same year, her husband Gerry retired from the Navy after 20 years of service, and their daughter Michelle was married to her husband, Trace Wilson. After her tour in Naples, and follow-on assignment as a student at Command and Staff College, Quantico, VA, and Joint Forces Staff College, Norfolk, VA, Captain Geddings completed her Joint Professional Military Education. In 1996 she was selected for the Legislative Fellows Program and reported to Washington, DC, for orientation at America's oldest public policy research institution, the Brookings Institution. The remainder of her fellowship, she served as my Legislative Assistant for Veteran's Affairs. Captain Geddings reported to the Department of the Navy, Organization, Management, and Infrastructure Team as a Senior Analyst and as administrative aide under the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy. In December 1999, Captain Geddings served on the Joint Staff, and was assigned as a Joint Education Planner in J-7, Operational Plans and Joint Force Development, with primary responsibility as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's representative for the Department of Defense Centers for Regional Security Studies. It was during this tour of duty that the attacks of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred. Shortly thereafter, Captain Geddings reported to the OPNAV staff in July, 2002, as the Head, Joint, and Contingency Matters and N-1 Planner. It is a great honor and personal privilege for me to recognize the exemplary service of CAPT Kristine Geddings and her family today. She is an individual of uncommon character, and an amiable personality who will be sincerely missed. I wish her and her family fair winds and following seas as she closes her distinguished military career. I also wish them continued success and happiness they so well deserve.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today Senator Durbin and I are introducing legislation strengthening current law concerning certification marks, collective marks, and service marks. While some of our colleagues may not recognize these terms, I doubt there is any Senator who has not come into contact with one of these marks. For example, if you bought the best baking potatoes in the world, you are familiar with the ``Grown in Idaho '' or ``Idaho Potatoes '' certification mark. Perhaps you know the certification mark ``UL,'' which stands for Underwriters Laboratory and signifies that an electrical product meets certain safety standards. If you watch network television and have seen the CBS ``eye,'' you have seen a service mark. The union labels on many products are collective marks. To explain the differences among these marks: service marks are words, names, symbols, or characters that distinguish the mark holder's services, while trademarks distinguish the mark holder's goods. Collective marks are trademarks that are used by organization or association to identify goods or services produced by members of a group. The certification mark is a trade or service mark used to certify characteristics about a product or service; it may indicate that the product or service originates in a specific geographic region, or meets certain standards of quality or mode of manufacture, or the work that went into it was performed by members of an organization. While they are somewhat different, these marks all serve the same purpose--that is, they enable the public to distinguish among products and services and prevent consumers from being deceived by similar brands. Congress determined that marks would serve the public interest by enhancing product quality and safety, and provided legal protection to these marks under the Lanham Act. The federal law protects all four kinds of marks equally; specifically, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 and 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1504 provide that service marks, collective marks, and certification marks ``shall be entitled to the protection provided'' to trademarks, except where Congress provides otherwise by statute. The principle of equal treatment also applies to ``no challenge'' provisions in license agreements for the use of a trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark. It is common for such agreements to include provisions under which licensees acknowledge the validity of and agree not to challenge the marks. By protecting the validity of the marks, these provisions reduce potential litigation costs for mark owners and protect the investment made by licensees. A long line of cases has upheld ``no challenge'' provisions in trademark licenses and dismissed validity challenges. Unfortunately, the clarity of the Lanham Act on these points has been confused by a recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Idaho Potato Commission v. M&M Produce Farm and Sales. That decision interpreted the Lanham Act as requiring that certification marks should be treated differently from trademarks with respect to ``no challenge'' provisions. The court mistakenly likened the public policy considerations surrounding certification marks to those surrounding patents. This decision has raised great consternation among the holders of certification marks and their licenses throughout the United States-- more than two dozen of whom joined in an amicus brief challenging the court's reasoning. Congress should be equally concerned, because this decision has the potential to undermine the Lanham Act and the certification mark system itself. The legislation we are introducing today would not change current law, but would only underscore the policy that Congress clearly intended in the first place. We propose to add the words ``rights an privileges'' to the two sections of the law that I quoted above, which would clarify that registered service marks, collective marks, and certification marks are ``entitled to the protections, rights, and privileges'' provided to trademarks. While I have learned never to call legislation ``simple,'' I would stress that at least our intention is simple: to reinstate the original intent of Congress and indicate our support of the view that these marks are to be given equal legal treatment. I invite all my colleagues to review this legislation and consider the important public policy interests it would protect. It is not only the mark holders and licensees in your State, but all consumers across the nation who have a stake in this bill, and I hope the Senate will act swiftly to approve it. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today Senator Durbin and I are introducing legislation strengthening current law concerning certification marks, collective marks, and service marks. While some of our colleagues may not recognize these terms, I doubt there is any Senator who has not come into contact with one of these marks. For example, if you bought the best baking potatoes in the world, you are familiar with the ``Grown in Idaho '' or ``Idaho Potatoes '' certification mark. Perhaps you know the certification mark ``UL,'' which stands for Underwriters Laboratory and signifies that an electrical product meets certain safety standards. If you watch network television and have seen the CBS ``eye,'' you have seen a service mark. The union labels on many products are collective marks. To explain the differences among these marks: service marks are words, names, symbols, or characters that distinguish the mark holder's services, while trademarks distinguish the mark holder's goods. Collective marks are trademarks that are used by organization or association to identify goods or services produced by members of a group. The certification mark is a trade or service mark used to certify characteristics about a product or service; it may indicate that the product or service originates in a specific geographic region, or meets certain standards of quality or mode of manufacture, or the work that went into it was performed by members of an organization. While they are somewhat different, these marks all serve the same purpose--that is, they enable the public to distinguish among products and services and prevent consumers from being deceived by similar brands. Congress determined that marks would serve the public interest by enhancing product quality and safety, and provided legal protection to these marks under the Lanham Act. The federal law protects all four kinds of marks equally; specifically, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 and 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1504 provide that service marks, collective marks, and certification marks ``shall be entitled to the protection provided'' to trademarks, except where Congress provides otherwise by statute. The principle of equal treatment also applies to ``no challenge'' provisions in license agreements for the use of a trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark. It is common for such agreements to include provisions under which licensees acknowledge the validity of and agree not to challenge the marks. By protecting the validity of the marks, these provisions reduce potential litigation costs for mark owners and protect the investment made by licensees. A long line of cases has upheld ``no challenge'' provisions in trademark licenses and dismissed validity challenges. Unfortunately, the clarity of the Lanham Act on these points has been confused by a recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Idaho Potato Commission v. M&M Produce Farm and Sales. That decision interpreted the Lanham Act as requiring that certification marks should be treated differently from trademarks with respect to ``no challenge'' provisions. The court mistakenly likened the public policy considerations surrounding certification marks to those surrounding patents. This decision has raised great consternation among the holders of certification marks and their licenses throughout the United States-- more than two dozen of whom joined in an amicus brief challenging the court's reasoning. Congress should be equally concerned, because this decision has the potential to undermine the Lanham Act and the certification mark system itself. The legislation we are introducing today would not change current law, but would only underscore the policy that Congress clearly intended in the first place. We propose to add the words ``rights an privileges'' to the two sections of the law that I quoted above, which would clarify that registered service marks, collective marks, and certification marks are ``entitled to the protections, rights, and privileges'' provided to trademarks. While I have learned never to call legislation ``simple,'' I would stress that at least our intention is simple: to reinstate the original intent of Congress and indicate our support of the view that these marks are to be given equal legal treatment. I invite all my colleagues to review this legislation and consider the important public policy interests it would protect. It is not only the mark holders and licensees in your State, but all consumers across the nation who have a stake in this bill, and I hope the Senate will act swiftly to approve it. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 14th at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 2532, to establish wilderness areas, promote conservation, improve public land, and provide for the high quality development in Lincoln County, NV, and for other purposes; S. 2723, to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as wilderness, and for other purposes; and S. 2709, to provide for the reforestation of appropriate forest cover on forest land derived from the public domain, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at 202-224-7574 Frank Gladics at 202-224-2878 or Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue that is just now emerging in rural America, but one that is important and has the potential to devastate, economically, small cities and towns across the inter-mountain West--like in my State, of Idaho. The new Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard of 10 parts per billion for arsenic is something the current Administration inherited from the prior Administration and is now trying to implement. I would remind my colleagues, however, that the new lowered arsenic standard was not universally supported in Congress when it was proposed. There were Senators--not many, but I was certainly one of them--that knew that the cost of complying with the new arsenic standard was going to cripple economically--was going to break the back financially--of rural communities and small towns across the western United States. I fought this new standard on the floor of the Senate. I knew the costs were crippling and the health benefit was bogus. I also knew that the science to support the lower standard is being exposed as based on examples and sample populations that were very, very flawed. The science is now revealing that extrapolating from those sample communities to the whole of the United States was a very, very flawed basis for the drinking water standard. I fought this new standard, but I did not succeed. There are communities now in Idaho that will not be able to come into compliance with this new standard by the time it takes effect. Some of these Idaho communities have estimated that it would take double or triple their entire city budget, just to try to come into compliance-- and that would mean that no other city services could be paid for. That kind of situation is clearly ridiculous, and I will fight as long and as hard as I can to find solutions to this problem. For example, this past March I discussed this issue with EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt. Mike Leavitt is a Westerner--his folks in Utah are having some of the same problems. I discussed that with him and I think he will try to be reasonable. I will keep discussing it with him. The problem is that EPA bureaucrats-- who are so good at being bureaucrats--think they know Idaho better than Idahoans do. Some of our Idaho communities have requested of EPA Region 10 that EPA exercise some flexibility with this standard. This is flexibility that EPA has already incorporated into its final agency rule on the arsenic standard. Unfortunately, EPA bureaucrats are doing what they are good at. They are saying no to flexibility and hey, by the way, Castleford, Idaho or New Plymouth, Idaho--this won't disadvantage you economically as much as you say. That is what EPA says to the communities of Idaho. We know better than you. Seeing that EPA cannot be reasonable, I have worked with my colleagues Senator Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Domenici of New Mexico. Both of their States have similar problems. The product of our collaboration is the bill we are introducing today. With this bill, we are trying to force States--and in Idaho's case, the EPA since Idaho is what they call a ``non-primacy state''--to approve requests from communities to delay their compliance with the new arsenic standard. The bill is straightforward, it is vital, and it is needed. It will save some of these communities from bankruptcy or from discontinuing essential community services. Many other states--other than Idaho, Nebraska, and New Mexico--face this same crisis. I implore my colleagues to learn about what their small communities are facing, and to join with us in enacting this essential regulatory relief.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today, following 1 hour of morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of William Myers III to be U.S. circuit court judge for the Ninth Circuit. A cloture vote is scheduled on the Myers nomination at 2:15 today, and that will be the first vote of the day. As a reminder, the Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow the weekly party luncheons to meet. Additional votes are possible today following the scheduled cloture vote. The Morocco Free Trade Agreement may be available, and we may begin consideration of the bill under the statutory limit. As always, Members will be notified as additional votes are scheduled.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I see the minority leader in the Chamber. I will make a few brief comments prior to him taking the floor. This morning, we will be in morning business, and I want to make a couple of comments about my frustration at this moment. William Myers is a Ninth Circuit court nominee from the President to fill the Idaho position. He is a phenomenal and highly qualified young man who has served as Solicitor at the Department of Interior. He was nominated well over a year ago and brought before the committee. He handled himself extremely well and professionally. He has been a man who has had experience in both the public and the private sector. He served on the Judiciary Committee under the former Senator from the State of Wyoming. He is a top-flight man. Yesterday, as we debated the nomination of Bill Myers, no one from the other side came. The reason they did not is that we were served notice some months ago that Bill Myers would not receive a vote this year. We could try to cloture him, but they were going to block a vote against him. Was he qualified? Yes. Should he serve? Yes. Is he the selection of the President? Yes. Should he have an up-or-down vote? Absolutely. But that is not going to happen. He is now the eighth judge the other side has just flat told us does not serve their political purpose, and therefore they will not allow us a vote. That is constitutional obstructionism in the first order of the advise and consent of our Constitution. So here is a young man who came to Washington out of college to serve his U.S. Senator, served with honor with the Judiciary Committee, worked for a private organization advising this Senator and the Senator from South Dakota, as well as the National Cattlemen's Association, on grazing; became a private practice attorney; then went as attorney to the Secretary of Interior; has served most honorably and very credibly. He will not get a vote this session of the 108th Congress. Why? Because the other side has just flat said he serves their environmental agenda purposes and therefore we will not be allowed to vote on him. That is a phenomenally frustrating reality to me as a Senator who believes that we do not have the right to arbitrarily pick and choose, we have the right to advise and consent and to vote them up or vote down, 51 votes or 50 votes, but not to arbitrarily pick and choose to serve the political agenda of a given political party for these purposes. There is no other explanation than the one I have just offered. If one looks at the broad qualifications of the eight judges who have now arbitrarily been chosen for their political past involvement and therefore the accusation that they might be an activist on the court, that is a frustration of the first order. So no one came to the floor yesterday to debate him except those of us on the Judiciary Committee advocating his nomination. The votes are so locked in, so fixed, so regimented, that this just is not going to happen. So we will have a 2:15 vote today. It is perfunctory. It is just the way it is going to be, unless we break out of this and say collectively to the Senate as a whole, no, this procedure of misusing the process is wrong. There is a time to debate, a time of reality, a time of broad understanding, but most importantly, under our Constitution, we have never filibustered nor intentionally blocked by demanding a 60-vote majority. They have always broken in the past when tried, and ultimately up until this Congress, Presidential nominations received the opportunity of the advise and consent of the Senate by a vote on the Senate floor, not of a cloture but of a majority. The reason I highlight that is because that is the vote this afternoon. It is a false vote. It is an unnecessary vote for a highly qualified young man who would serve the Ninth Circuit well, a Ninth Circuit court that is now viewed as the most dysfunctional court in the land, where over 90 percent of its decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court. Bill Myers brings common sense to the court, not the radicalism of San Francisco lawyers but common sense spread across the western public land States of our country. Is that why he is not getting the vote? Very possibly so. And that is a tragedy of the highest order. This is not the kind of day the Senate, this great Chamber, ought to have, but we are going to have it today at 2:15 this afternoon. So it is important that I speak briefly to that.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I know the minority leader is kindly waiting, but let me say one other thing. We are going to be presented-- the press has already been presented--the 9/11 Commission report. I do not have one in my office. I have to go read about it in the New York Times. Thank you, Commission, for being so public that you will not even inform those of us who created you, but we understand they are going to recommend the creation of a czar-like or individual director of intelligence that coordinates all of the agencies. I have one comment on that only because I have not seen the report, and I do not know that the minority leader has either--we have not had a full opportunity to read it--let us proceed with caution. We have done a great deal of work since 9/11 now to bring these institutions together to coordinate intelligence. We are better off than we were pre-9/11. I am not sure that I want a Cabinet level, politicized director of intelligence for our country. I do not know that it is a good idea to politicize that. If we put them in a Cabinet level position, by the character of that position we have politicized intelligence. Intelligence should not be politicized. It ought to be factual. And we now know we have had a problem with the facts, but it wasn't just our intelligence community; it was intelligence communities around the world. Bad information makes bad information makes bad reports and can produce bad decisions. Intelligence is critical and it needs to be of the highest order. I am not suggesting we don't have a top level coordinator/director, but let us think long about the idea of politicizing that person. We have seen the Directors of the FBI stay on through Republican and Democrat administrations throughout history--not always but many times. It brought quality and uniformity to that law enforcement community. It did not politicize it. It is every bit if not more important today, with the war on terrorism, that we build a quality structure, that the information be of the first order, and that it never ever could be suggested or run the test of, well, that person is a political person, that person was appointed because he was a political friend. That is my only caution today, in a preliminary thought, until we get the report and see the facts and the evidence. And I do wish the Commission would let us have the report before they give it to the New York Times. It probably would be a bit more appropriate and give us an opportunity to speak factually and knowledgeably about it. I thank you, Mr. President. The minority leader has been kind and patient, and I yield the floor.