A bill to clarify that service marks, collective marks, and certification marks are entitled to the same protections, rights, and privileges of trademarks.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to join my colleagues to introduce the No Child Left Behind Improvement Act. Our goal is to chart a better course for bringing the reforms under the law to all students across the country.

I was proud to stand with President Bush in January 2002 as he signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law. At that time, Republicans and Democrats came together to recognize the need to create a strong education system where every child attends a good school with a good teacher. Together, we recognized the importance of achieving that goal for the future of our democracy, economy, and national defense.

In drafting the No Child Left Behind Act in a bipartisan manner, we made great progress from the days when Democrats and Republicans were light years apart on school reform, with some trying to abolish the U.S. Department of Education and privatize our public schools.

No Child Left Behind made improving our public schools a national priority. It laid the cornerstone for a solid accountability system in every State. It called for high academic standards in reading, math, and science, and high-quality tests to measure progress toward those standards. For the first time, it placed our low-income children, children with disabilities, minority children, and English language learners at the top of the school reform agenda. No longer would their needs be hidden, overlooked, or ignored.

It also provided the building blocks for quality in all schools. A fully-qualified teacher in every classroom and better teacher training to make it happen. More after-school tutoring and supplemental services to help students with the greatest needs. Special programs for English language learners. Expanded support for reading in early grades. School report cards to provide information to parents and motivate them to be part of their children's education.

No Child Left Behind promised a great deal to our students and to their families. It's still the right promise. But it hasn't been kept.

Since the law passed, the country has seen the promise of funding No Child Left Behind flagrantly broken by the Bush administration, time and time again. President Bush proposed to cut funding for the law by $90 million just 1 month after signing the bill. His next education budget cut funding by far more--$1.2 billion.

Today, he's leaving 4.6 million children behind, and he's underfunding the law by $9.4 billion. At the same time, President Bush proposes to give tax breaks for the top 1 percent of Americans that total five times the funds promised but never delivered under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Despite these broken promises, our schools are trying to do their part. They've been asked to help all students reach proficiency, and they are responding. Teachers and other school professionals are beginning the hard work of tackling disparities in student achievement, and putting into place the curriculum needed to turn-around thousands of schools that have been identified as needing improvement.

School leaders are struggling to respond to the challenges of providing more highly qualified teachers, supplemental services, and after-school programs in school districts. They're laboring hard in their work to implement the No Child Left Behind Act and bring the promise of true reform to more children and their parents.

The work of school reform is not easy, and schools are struggling to succeed under No Child Left Behind. But on top of the broken promise to provide schools the resources they need to get the job done right, the administration has undermined the efforts of schools to comply with the law, and crippled reforms through its ineffective implementation effort.

Since No Child Left Behind passed, the Department of Education's track record in issuing basic guidance under the law been mired in delay. Final accountability guidelines for children with special needs and limited English

proficient children were announced 2 years after the law was enacted, and long after the law's accountability requirements were already in place for schools.

The administration has abandoned requirements to measure adequately the progress of English language learners in a valid and reliable way. They've suggested to States that they don't have to bother to develop native language assessments, and they've done nothing to help improve assessments for children with disabilities.

They've ignored standards for supplemental service providers, and failed to enforce the civil rights protections that are so essential to providing all children fair access to such services. Families are relying on tutoring and extra support to help their children. But the administration's guidance actually prohibits States from requiring high standards for that supplemental support. A highly qualified teacher in every classroom is good policy. Why shouldn't the same apply for supplemental services?

The administration's ham-handed implementation of public school choice has ignored questions of capacity in school districts with overcrowded classrooms.

And their weakened regulations undermine protections against high dropout rates--especially for low-income and minority students. Without information and reporting of those rates for each subgroup of children, the public won't have a complete picture of how children are succeeding.

It's time for the administration to correct these problems and do their part to improve implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act.

The bill that I'm introducing today gets these reforms on track. It will help keep the promise of public school choice, promote quality and access in supplemental services, provide for better assessments for children, and ensure better reporting by schools and states of graduation and dropout rates so that children don't fall through the cracks.

It's important to acknowledge what this bill does not do. It does not make fundamental changes to the requirements under No Child Left Behind. Those reforms are essential to improving our public schools. Every child deserves a chance to learn in a good school, and that chance depends on whether we succeed in implementing the law.

The No Child Left Behind Improvement Act will ensure that school districts consider health and safety codes as they draw up their plans for providing public school choice to students, consistent with the law. In order to ensure that public school choice actually helps children succeed educationally, we must provide an environment that is safe and conducive to their learning--not overcrowded.

It will provide better access to quality supplemental services for eligible students, and ensure full enforcement of civil rights protections under those provisions. The administration's policy of relaxed enforcement in this area allows some private providers off-the- hook from serving children that need the most help. That's wrong.

All students should have a fair chance to choose a supplemental service provider that meets their needs. Limited English proficient children and children with disabilities are often those students that need the most extra help and assistance in our public schools, and this bill would ensure that each State select some providers with the skills to serve those populations.

This bill will also better enable teachers and para-professionals to meet the required standards for teacher quality under the law. A highly qualified teacher is the single most important factor in improving student achievement, and the No Child Left Behind Act requires that every classroom have a qualified teacher by 2006.

We must provide for a system that ensures all teachers have the opportunity to meet that goal. The No Child Left Behind Act includes an alternate standard for veteran teachers to demonstrate their competence and be counted as highly qualified in the subject matter that they teach. This bill ensures that every State develop and implement that standard under the law, and that every state provide para-professionals with the opportunities provided under No Child Left Behind to demonstrate their competence.

Fifteen States have not yet developed or applied standards for veteran teachers. We must do better especially for the 67 percent of all public school teachers that have been teaching for more than 5 years.

And finally, for No Child Left Behind's accountability provisions to be useful, they must be accurate. We need accurate determinations of whether schools are making progress.

The Department's delay in issuing adequate accountability rules for counting children with disabilities and limited English proficient children has created unnecessary confusion, caused a potential mislabeling of schools, and misdirected resources from the schools and students who actually need them. The Department should apply those regulations retroactively, so that schools may be judged on the same standards for the past year as they will be in the future, not by different criteria for different years. In June, I introduced a bill-- The No Child Left Behind Fairness Act--to accomplish that goal. The bill that I'm introducing today also includes those requirements.

We're at an important crossroads in reforming our public schools. Schools are hurting, crippled by shrinking budgets and a broken promise of funding under the law. The ineffective track record of this administration in implementing No Child Left Behind largely has contributed to their problems and frustrations.

We must do better. Turning our back on the reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act is no solution. Neither is turning our back on public education. I urge my colleagues to act to ensure that the promise of the essential reforms under No Child Left Behind are realized. Our students and families deserve no less.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the inability of promising, talented young athletes from other countries to play for sports teams in the United States, such as the MAINEiacs, a junior league hockey team in Lewiston, ME. This year's shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal nonagricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to me and to many in my home State of Maine. In early March, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that the congressionally mandated cap of 66,000 H-2B visas would soon be met. It immediately stopped accepting applications for these visas. This meant that thousands of employers in Maine and across the United States who rely on the H-2B program have been in a very difficult position this summer.

For example, Maine's tourism and hospitality industry, as well as its forest products industry, have been particularly hard-pressed to find enough American workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels during what is their busiest time of year. What many people do not know, however, is that the H-2B visa shortage has also meant that hundreds of promising athletes have been unable to come to the United States to play for minor league and amateur sports teams across the Nation.

Those affected by the H-2B problem are not confined to just one industry or one State. That is why I cosponsored two pieces of legislation that would immediately address this problem: S. 2252, the Save the Summer Act, introduced by Senator Kennedy, and S. 2258, the Summer Operations and Services (SOS) Relief and Reform Act, introduced by Senators Hatch and Chambliss. The former would increase the H-2B visa cap by 40,000 this fiscal year, while the

latter would exclude from the cap returning foreign workers who were counted against the cap within the past 2 years. It has become clear, however, that until this legislation comes before the full Senate for a vote, we must continue to actively seek alternative solutions to this problem.

One issue we must address is the problem facing the many minor league professional teams, as well as junior league hockey teams, that rely on H-2B visas. Without these visas, sports teams in Maine and across the Nation have been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States. Major League sports have also lost a traditional source of talent for their teams.

In my home State of Maine, for example, the Lewiston MAINEiacs, a Canadian junior hockey league team, has been unable to obtain the H-2b visas necessary for the majority of its players to remain in the United States to play in the team's first home games this September. Although these players range in age from 16 to 20, the majority of them are between 16 and 18 years old and are required during the hockey season to balance the demands of athletics and academics. These scholar- athletes are among Canada's most talented junior players, but due to the shortage of H-2B visas, they are in danger of missing out on a tremendous opportunity to improve their skills and, possibly, graduate to a career in professional hockey. In addition, for each home game that the team must cancel or reschedule, the economic impact on the city of Lewiston, and nearby Auburn, in terms of lost hotel and restaurant revenue will be considerable.

The Portland Sea Dogs, a Double-A level baseball team affiliated with the Boston Red Sox, also relies on H-2B visas to bring several of its most skilled players to the United States. Thousands of fans come out each year to see this team, and others like it across the country, play what is arguably one of America's favorite sports. This year, however, approximately 300 talented young, foreign baseball players have been prevented from coming to the U.S. to play for minor league teams, a proving ground for athletes hoping to make it to the Major Leagues.

The P-1 nonimmigrant visa is used by athletes who are deemed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as performing at an ``internationally recognized level of performance.'' Unfortunately, USCIS has interpreted this visa category to exclude these talented minor and amateur league athletes. This visa is typically reserved for only those athletes who have already been promoted to Major League sports. However, none of these promising athletes is likely to earn a Major League contract if the players are not first permitted to hone their skills, and to prove themselves, in the minor leagues. This problem can easily be solved by expanding the P-1 visa category to include minor league athletes, as well as those amateur-level athletes, like the Lewiston MAINEiacs, who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues.

I have received a letter from officials from Major League Baseball, which strongly supports the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include professional minor league baseball players. I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record. As the League points out, by making P-1 visas available to this group of athletes, teams would be able to make player development decisions based on the talent of its players, without being constrained by visa quotas. The P-1 category, the League argues, is appropriate for minor league players because these are the players that the Major League Clubs have selected as some of the best baseball prospects in the world.

There is no question that Americans are passionate about sports. We have high expectations for our teams, and demand only the best from our athletes. By expanding the P-1 visa category, we will make it possible for athletes to be selected based on talent and skill, rather than nationality. I ask that we act quickly to amend the law to make this possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004.'' On September 11, 2001, the Nation witnessed the tragic loss of hundreds of heroic firefighters. Amazingly, every year quality firefighting equipment worth millions of dollars is wasted. In order to avoid civil liability lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier fire departments destroy surplus equipment, including hoses, fire trucks, protective gear and breathing apparatus, instead of donating it to volunteer fire departments.

The basic purpose of this legislation is to induce donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.''

The ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004'' is modeled after a bill passed by the Texas State legislature in 1997 and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in more than $6 million in additional equipment donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and South Carolina have passed similar legislation at the state level.

The legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire departments. in the 107th Congress, Representative Castle introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act which had 104 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Firemen's Association of the State of New York, and a former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), James Lee Witt. The bill has been reintroduced as H.R. 1787 in the 108th Congress.

This bill does not cost taxpayer dollars nor does it create additional bureaucracies to inspect equipment. The bill eliminates unnecessary inspection bureaucracies. This is for three reasons. First, bureaucracies are not necessary for inspections because the fire chiefs make the inspections themselves. Second, some of the State bureaucracies control who gets the equipment. These donations are private property transactions, not a good that is donated to the State, allowing the State to pick who will get the equipment. Third, there is no desire to create the temptation for waste, fraud, and abuse in a State bureaucracy in charge of picking winners and losers.

The bill reflects the purpose of the Texas State law. Federally, precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Act (Public Law 104-210), named for the late Representative Bill Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and businesses to donate millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-101) also immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan measures in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These provisions were also included in a broader charitable package in S. 997, the Charity Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for corporate in-kind charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft, and facility use. The same provision passed the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, in July of 2001, but was not signed into law.

Volunteers comprise approximately 73 percent of firefighters in the United States. Of the total estimated 1,078,300 firefighters across the country, 784,700 are volunteer. Of the more than 30,000 fire departments in the country, approximately 22,600 are all volunteer; 4,800 are mostly volunteer; 1,600 are mostly career; and 2,000 are all career. In 2000, 58 of the 103 firefighters who died in the line of duty were volunteers.

This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to fire departments in other states. All of America has witnessed the heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of firefighters in New York City and in the Washington, D.C. area. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this incentive for the provision of additional safety equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line every day throughout this great nation.

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. 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.