Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to speak about a subject that is dear to the heart of the Chair because Alaska contains much of the energy that the United States needs. Yesterday, crude oil closed at $39.57 on the New York Exchange. Nationwide, the average price of gasoline is $1.84, expected to rise 5 to 10 cents over the next several days, and even more as we enter the summer driving season which begins on Memorial Day.

Natural gas prices are also at a record high for this year, 70 percent higher than they were a year ago. We are increasingly dependent on imported supplies to set prices. In the Pacific Northwest, the snowpack is at 50 percent of average, and so hydroelectric generation will be at a record low this summer.

We currently import 55 percent of our oil. We will depend upon 70 percent for our demand by 2025. Meanwhile, we are experiencing record temperatures in southern California where already there is a strain on the region's electricity system.

I do not know what sort of psychological barriers need to be broken in the Senate to finally pass comprehensive energy legislation. We are very close to breaking through every psychological barrier related to energy policy. Oil will soon cost $40 a barrel. Gasoline will be over $2 a gallon. Natural gas will be permanently over $5 per MCF and the adequacy of our electricity generating grid this summer is now a simple calculus. Will it be hotter than usual? Because if so, we will have blackouts again.

My colleagues will notice that I no longer believe that our growing dependence on imported oil will have the psychological impact necessary to motivate my colleagues into action on the Energy bill. For my part, I am alarmed. I see us becoming 70-percent dependent on imported oil. I read of terrorist threats against overseas oil infrastructure and refining capacity, and I am amazed that I have colleagues who want to stop building our emergency supplies in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or, even worse, call on us to use up those reserves now. In the past, the result of such activity was miniscule in terms of its impact on gasoline prices. It is just something to talk about. It is not something that will do anything.

Instead, yesterday a number of Senators came to the floor and called on the President to pressure OPEC to increase production and reduce prices. Does anybody assume he has not already done that? Does anybody assume they are interested in what we say today? It would be terrific if OPEC would do that, but I have to ask my colleagues, why would OPEC take us seriously? OPEC sees us for what we are. We are hooked and we cannot even do the most incremental steps to begin to address this plight.

OPEC sees a Congress that has talked about passing an energy bill for 10 years. They see a Congress that has failed every year for the last 3 years to pass an energy bill. OPEC sees an America that lacks the political will to address its own crisis. Instead, we blame and complain. If you were OPEC, would you take us seriously?

Some say passing an energy bill will not do a lot for foreign crude oil prices. I disagree. I think passing the first comprehensive energy bill to come out of this Congress in 12 years sends a strong signal to oil-producing nations. I think if we do more to conserve energy, increase production, diversify our energy supply, we will tell OPEC America is a country with unity, commitment, and the political will to address our most serious domestic problem, and that is our energy challenges.

If Senate Democrats mean what they say when they wring their hands and lament the rising oil prices, pass this bill. When we voted last week on the

authorizing portion of the bill, we got only 14 Democrats to join us, and then someone on that side had the audacity to say it was the Republicans' fault we didn't pass it. That is less than one-third of the Democrats who voted in favor of it. Yet the steady stream of Senators who come down here to speechify on energy is from the other side. They are Democrats. Some of the Democrats down here on the Senate floor yesterday wringing their hands about gasoline prices, blaming the administration yesterday, are the same Senators who voted against the Energy bill last week.

Last summer we had the biggest blackout in the Nation's history during the August recess. You all remember that. When Congress returned, Senators went to the Senate floor to make speeches, to wring their hands about the problem in our power grid. Some of those same Senators turned around a few weeks later and voted against an energy bill that mandated electricity reliability. Everyone who knows anything says that must be adopted if we are to rearrange things and have power over the utility lines so we will not have blackouts. It is recommended by everyone who knows anything about it, and we sit here and fail to pass the bill that contains it.

Gasoline prices have shattered all records in April. Prices could reach $3 by late September. I know that is a startling statement, but I make it because I believe it. Prices could reach $3 a gallon by late summer. Natural gas prices on average are 70 percent higher than last year. Our electricity grid is every bit as vulnerable to a blackout today as last summer, and we stand here making speeches and passing the blame: Blame OPEC, blame the President.

The buck stops here. It is up to this Congress to pass a bill that stabilizes the price of oil, gas, coal, and natural gas. It is up to this Congress to pass a bill that increases our production of energy from natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, and clean coal. It is up to this Congress to mandate electricity reliability. Let's stop politicking on this energy bill and on this energy problem. Let's stop looking to foreign shores to solve our problems. Let's stop looking to OPEC so they would have the will. Let us unify and resolve that lack of enthusiasm and unity. Let's roll up our sleeves and pass an energy bill.

It is possible. The bill before us now contains about half the Energy bill. It has all the tax credits that will bring much of the energy that I have spoken about on board America. It will not do the whole job, but it will do something. We understand there are Senators who do not want to see that pass. It has broad support and it will do something significant. I trust we will pass it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish I could have come to the floor earlier but sometimes you are surprised to hear arguments that you never expected. All Senators on that side of the aisle who have come down here to rail against President Bush about high gasoline prices need to take a look in the mirror and blame themselves. I have been down here for months trying to get a comprehensive energy bill passed that will promote a policy of greater energy security and independence. Some of these very Senators are blocking these efforts.

The Energy bill is not a silver bullet to lower prices for gasoline or for natural gas. No such thing exists. There is no silver bullet. It is disingenuous for Democrats to imply that one exists. They know better.

Our bill is long term, to deal with our supply and manage our demand. That is the only responsible strategy. We need more domestic oil and more natural gas production. The Energy bill provides the open door for that to occur. We need alternative fuel sources. The Energy bill promotes for sources such as wind and solar. It promotes clean coal technology, and, yes, eventually, nuclear power. We need this broader portfolio to reduce risks of overdependence on one source. The occupant of the chair knows that as well as anyone. One source of energy is disaster for this great country. Natural gas, as the sole energy to produce electricity, is a disaster.

Senator Schumer said: ``Don't think there is nothing we can do about high oil prices.''

He is right. He suggests remedies--stop filling the SPR. That is wrong. But I do agree we can do something about oil, natural gas, and gasoline prices. Changes to our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the SPR, are short term, shortsighted, and bad policy.

The SPR is a national security asset. It is there to serve for an emergency, in an emergency situation, when there is a severe energy disruption. It is not a price control mechanism. If we alter the SPR practices, then we can assume that OPEC will alter their production output. This leads to more volatility in the market and a disastrous result.

President Clinton tried to use SPR to deal with high oil prices. He failed. Gasoline prices--believe this--dropped by one penny. That is all, a single penny. Risking our national security by depleting or playing around with the SPR got us a total impact of one penny.

I know we are all concerned about high gasoline prices. On average, gasoline demand in the United States is about 9 million barrels a day. That is roughly 378 million gallons of gasoline a day. Some parts of the country are experiencing $2-a-gallon price, and others have prices in the $1.70 range.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the national monthly average regular gasoline pump prices are expected to peak at about $1.87. One of the reported reasons that we hear for high gasoline prices is the high oil price demanded by OPEC. In 2003, we imported 42 percent of our total petroleum imports from OPEC countries. Supplies from OPEC provides about 26 percent of our domestic crude oil.

Senator Wyden introduced a resolution about OPEC. I agree with some points of his resolution. The resolution says the President should communicate with members of OPEC and maintain strong relations. Of course, that is a given. We need to work together in a cohesive fashion in our relations with exporting countries and send a strong message that we want reliable supplies at fair prices.

Senator Wyden's resolution also says that Congress should take short- term and long-term approaches to reducing

and stabilizing oil prices. If we pass the Energy bill now, in the short term, then in the long term we will see the benefits of lower oil prices.

The last part of Senator Wyden's resolution lists some things that can be done to lower oil prices. I particularly agree that we consider lifting regulations that interfere with the ability of the U.S. domestic oil and coal, hydroelectric, biomass, and other alternative fuels to supply a greater percentage of the energy needs of the United States. That is an excellent description of the Energy bill pending before the Senate. Isn't it interesting, instead of passing the bill, we recommend resolutions that do the same thing but the resolution will not accomplish the same thing. We all know that.

If Senator Wyden is serious that he wants these things, he should be voting to pass the Energy bill that includes the very list contained in his resolution.

I thank the Senate for listening. I am ready at any time to come down and debate the Energy bill and its content, because it is time we quit talking and start doing. It is time those on the other side look in the mirror. In the mirror, they will see they are responsible for what is happening because they will not help us pass an energy bill.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I understand that we have about 6 minutes on our side.

I am going to use those 5 minutes, and then we will be on the Domenici amendment. Then, I will speak a few more minutes, as I have time. I will start by using some time right now.

Mr. President, I must tell my colleagues that, as chairman of the Energy Committee, I am having a good week for a change. On Monday, Senator Cantwell came to the floor and sought unanimous consent to bring up one piece of the Energy bill. On Tuesday, the minority leader came to the floor and offered a portion of the Energy bill as an amendment to the Internet tax bill.

We seem to be on a roll. Members know this country has a serious energy problem. They are feeling the political pressure to do something about it. That is good news for this chairman, who has waited so long and worked so hard seeking to develop some sort of political consensus on a broad energy bill.

Fellow Senators, I have never in my 31 years worked on legislation that is so hard to piece together, because every time you have a comprehensive bill, you show it to somebody and they read it in its entirety, they find one piece out of hundreds they cannot support. If I had the wisdom and the time to go to every Senator and let them read it and say what can I take out that would make you happy and have you go for this bill, I assume that when I was finished, this 900-page authorizing bill would probably end up being just a few sheets of paper.

The truth is that America is crying for a comprehensive energy bill. America is not worried about one Senator's particular concern about one particular aspect. They are worried about the fact we will soon be importing natural gas. We have been using our own natural gas, and now predictions are that we are going to be using foreign natural gas in large quantities very soon.

The consensus that I indicated to you is very hard to achieve. In the last Congress, the House and Senate both passed bills but were unable to resolve their differences in conference. I am not speaking of a few months ago; I mean the last legislative session, the last Congress.

Last year the Senate considered energy legislation for somewhere on the order of 3 months before we were able to pass a bill off the floor. This time we got a conference agreement.

I have been criticized for that conference. Some say we didn't have enough meetings. Some say the meetings were not open to the public. Others say they were not open to the Democratic staff.

Let me tell you, this is good rhetoric, but the truth is we conducted one of the most open conferences that I have been in in almost 32 years in the Senate. We made agreements public as they were reached and at the end, before we circulated the agreement for signature, we held an open meeting and reconsidered all the amendments. When amendments could be agreed to by both bodies, we made changes. That is very different than the way most conferences are conducted. I have asked Senators on both sides of the aisle if they have been involved in bills where they were the minority and they didn't even participate in the conference, and many have said that is almost the course of things as we live in this Senate. Yet we did our best to use the Internet as a new tool. We submitted this to all the press through the Internet. They knew more about this bill if they wanted to report it than anybody has ever known. While doing that, we obviously submitted it to the minority and the minority staff.

I responded to that criticism by dramatically reducing this bill. It is a slimmed-down energy bill. It dramatically reduces the cost for the nontax portions. We have reduced the cost from $5.4 billion to a minus $1.3 billion.

Mr. President, I yield myself up to 15 minutes.

I hope I don't use all that time. Will the Chair advise me when I have used 10 minutes?

Mr. President, we cut the cost by $6.7 billion. The amendment before us is not subject to a point of order and it can proceed without any concern in that regard.

We have been criticized heretofore because we had an MTBE safe harbor provision. That provided faulty product liability protection for the manufacturers of MTBE. When the conference report was on the Senate floor, I spent a great deal of time defending that position which was insisted upon by the House. I thought that provision was necessary, but because we could not get that provision accepted by the Senate, it is not in this legislation.

I feel very chagrined today to note, while it has not been to my ear where I have heard it, I understand the oil companies and their major lobbying groups are opposing this bill because of MTBE not being in it. I think that is a shortsighted approach. How are they going to get MTBE if we don't get a bill? If we don't get a bill, we stay right where we are, except we don't have an energy bill for America. What we have is no change in the MTBE law, but we do not have an energy bill.

I urge those who are taking that position to assume the reality of things. If they think we are going to change the original bill and get two more votes--remember, in a cloture situation on the original bill, we got 58 votes. I remind those who think we can go back and fix it that it is also subject to seven points of order. Sooner or later, it would have been defeated by a point of order.

For those who are sitting around thinking that we can get that, they just absolutely are talking irrelevant, they are talking things that cannot happen. Now let's talk about the bill.

I hope my friend Larry Craig comes to the Senate floor before we are finished because I could not have a better helper than he. He understands this bill. I want to suggest to all that this bill, in its slimmed-down manner, when coupled with the tax provisions that are in the tax bill that will come up in the Senate next week, will put before the American people one of the best energy bills we have ever done. The American people are watching as gasoline prices soar, and they are going to be looking today as Senators vote yes or no on keeping this bill alive.

I know it is tough to get 60 votes. I know that Senators have their particular reasons--one little piece of this bill--for voting no. I know there are some Senators even on my side who are being told: Wait around until we get MTBE. We are not going to get MTBE in the Senate. It is an absolute wish that cannot be accomplished. For those who are worried about it, they ought to let us get a bill and then see what happens.

Let me move to a few other issues. Senator Bingaman came to the Senate floor yesterday with a list of concerns. He does not support the hydroelectric relicensing provision, the Indian energy provisions, or the electricity title. I understand his perspective, but I contend that his views on these issues are the ones that are outside the consensus. We need consensus. We do not need what one Senator thinks we need; we need consensus. This bill has consensus.

Take the hydroelectric relicensing which is so important to Senators of both parties from the Northwest. We are not trying to build new dams or change the standards. All we are trying to do is streamline the process. Senator Craig has been active in that issue, and many Senators voted for it, even though they are not from that area.

Let's take the electricity provision about which many experts have said the future of America lies in the electric grid of America growing and becoming stronger and becoming better, and of all the things we can do, this is the most important.

When I became chairman, I assumed that issue would be an obstacle to reaching consensus in light of the great controversy over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's recent rulings. We worked for months to get an agreement, and the final product is, to my amazement, supported by almost all the players in the industry across this land. It is by far the greatest achievement of this bill that we could reach such an agreement in the months since we completed that conference. The agreement has held, and it is here. There are parts of this bill that some criticize, just as there are parts of this comprehensive legislation that, taken alone, I would criticize; however, on balance, this package is a middle ground in this Congress.

We know this bill is before us in an extraordinary way. We know that if after this vote the McCain vote succeeds, we are wiped out, we are removed from the calendar. We understand that. I guess the probability is that we cannot get cloture, but we are not giving up because we understand there is some kind of bipartisan support for getting cloture.

This bill also has that most attractive part for many Senators, the ethanol provisions, which 31 Republicans voted for when it was introduced. Senators can look at that and see if they voted for it or not, and if they did, they should vote for the Domenici bill. I hate to call it ``mine'' because it is the result of so many Senators working on both sides of the aisle. I think I would call it the ``consensus bill,'' but maybe people would not like that because they do not think it is consensus for them.

This bill provides great quantities of natural gas from American sources over the next 5 to 10 years--from Alaska and from underground off our shores without in any way violating the moratorium. It produces a modernization which addresses the drilling activities in our country so we can get more oil and gas without harming the environment.

It solves the electric problem. In addition to the grid I talked about, believe it or not, this bill provides that when there is gridlock, when you cannot proceed any further because you run into State lines or you run into somebody else's right-of-way, believe it or not, we got a consensus, including Republicans, that after negotiations that occur in the States or between the companies that are at loggerheads, we have a provision that eminent domain can apply. Nobody thought we would get that. That is an extraordinary position to get and bring before the Senate.

I know it does not sound sexy, as some political issues, but it is good. This bill is filled with very good things. I hope those who are looking at this bill with a microscope, and want to make sure every single provision meets with their satisfaction, understand that the American people are not looking at this bill with a microscope. They are looking at this bill to see if the Senate wants to pass an energy bill. This will be a signal of whether we want to put something together that will help America in this energy crisis.

If we do not want to, then we can send a signal that we do not like this provision and we do not like that provision, but at some point in time the American people are not going to look at that. They are going to see where were the Democrats, where were the Republicans, where were the leaders in trying to get a bill that will help solve America's energy problem.

I see the minority leader in the Chamber, and I understand his great concern on the ethanol front. I suggest that he has been very helpful in the past in trying to get a comprehensive bill which would include ethanol, and I understand that, but I submit there are an awful lot of people who are very shortsighted.

I will use 1 more minute and yield the time.

I understand the minority leader is in a predicament because of this being a bill that the consensus was worked out not by his side, although there were some, but predominately by this Senator on this side. I believe the American people are going to say on every major aspect of America's growing dependence, the price of gasoline, the price of natural gas, wiping out of the fertilizer industry in America which affects our agriculture, and on and on, they understand we need an energy bill.

We need this bill. This is as good as we will ever get. Having spoken as well as I can for as long as is prudent in the Senate where one can speak too long--the House does it in 2 or 3 minutes; if they would have forced me I guess I could have done that--but as I started out saying, as the chairman of this committee, it has been a good week and a few good things have happened. There has been some evidence that people want to get this bill done.

I yield the floor.

How much time do we have?

I yield my time to Senator Craig.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate a birthday and to pay tribute to a hero and icon from my home State a New Mexican who became the renowned symbol for the Cooperative Forest Fire Prevention program. His name is Smokey Bear.

Sixty years ago this year, Smokey Bear became the voice for the Forest Service public education campaign to save American forests. Since his creation in 1944, most Americans now quickly associate the name Smokey Bear with his mantra: ``Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires.''

Not many know the remarkable story of Smokey Bear or that the fire prevention program is the longest running public service advertising campaign in the history of the Ad Council. In 1950, Smokey Bear became real, sadly through an unfortunate forest fire. That spring, in Lincoln County, a little black bear cub was found clinging to the side of a charred pine tree after a forest fire swept through the mountains. After being discovered, he was briefly called ``Hot Foot Teddy,'' but was later named Smokey Bear after the Ad Council's poster bear.

Since that late spring day, that cub became the living symbol of Smokey Bear and worked to remind Americans of the importance of outdoor fire safety. It is a message whose importance has not faded since the bear was discovered on a charred New Mexico mountain.

New Mexico, along with other Western States, has experienced devastating

fires in recent years, which is why the fire prevention message is so important. Forest fires burn millions of acres, destroy homes and businesses, and, worse yet, take the lives of wildland firefighters. As we remember all too well, 2000 was the worst fire year on record since 1957, and subsequent years have not been much better.

Last year's devastating fires prompted us to finally agree to the passage of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. I have a feeling Smokey Bear would be proud of that accomplishment, and know that his wildfire program had never been more important. While we now work to improve our forests with this new law, Smokey's message must still resound. This message of forest fire prevention has undoubtedly helped to reduce the number of forest acres lost annually to wildfire. By what measure, I can never know. However, to suggest that he has not made a significant difference would be amiss.

The injured cub discovered in 1950, our Smokey Bear, eventually arrived at the National Zoo in Washington, DC, where he would become the living symbol for fire prevention. He resided in the National Zoo for 26 years until he passed on November 9, 1976. Most appropriately he was returned to his old roaming grounds and to his home town to be laid to rest.

Capitan is a small town in Lincoln County, nestled between those Capitan and Sacramento Mountains of central New Mexico. This beautiful place is full of wonderful people who love the land and refer to Smokey Bear as ``Capitan's favorite son.'' Each year Capitan residents celebrate his memory with the Fourth of July Smokey Bear Stampede, but this year is a special tribute. The village is hosting a special 60th birthday celebration May 7-9. Much of the 3-day festivity will take place at the historical park named in Smokey Bear's honor and along what is now aptly named Smokey Bear Boulevard.

I pay tribute to the people of Capitan in this Record--they have gone to great lengths to preserve the story and meaning of Smokey Bear. I also salute the USDA, the Forest Service, the National Association of State Foresters, and the Ad Council for supporting this program all these years. May the initiative's success only be a prelude to future forest preservation and wildfire prevention, and may Smokey Bear and all he represents forever remain.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with several of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, legislation that will protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with several of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, legislation that will protect U.S. trademarks and their legitimate owners from the effects of the confiscations decreed by the Cuban government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I wish the Senator from Arizona were here, because I would like to tell him I agree with many of the things he said. I certainly did not come to the floor--in fact, I left after the last vote, assuming I would not be back down here. I thought we were going on with something and that his bill, which had been debated, although it had a number of small amendments--I thought it would go through here and become law. But I have to admit between that little visit to my office and what I got on the phone about 25 minutes ago were very different. I don't want to be accusatory; I just want to say the minority leader, over a long period of time, has been in the same predicament we have all been in with reference to an Energy bill. He has been in the same predicament regarding ethanol as we have. We produced the first bill this year that had ethanol in it. As a matter of fact, everybody remembers that comprehensive bill was defeated by two votes in a cloture. It got 58 votes--that first one.

What we have is somebody has taken a piece of the Energy bill and attached it not directly to the McCain amendment but to the tree on the side, as an amendment which will fail when McCain passes. Nonetheless, I guess making the point that you had a vote on ethanol does somebody something.

Amendment No. 3051 to Amendment No. 3050

Mr. President, I want to suggest I am very pleased this happened, because I now send to the desk S. 2095 as an amendment to the Daschle amendment.

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

I did not hear the Chair.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a temporary holdup in the reading of the amendment.

Will the Senator object if it was understood that the reading could continue as soon as we finish our discussion? Temporarily, just 5 minutes per side and then the reading will continue.

And nothing will change.

Mr. President, might I engage in a conversation with the distinguished Senator from Nevada and talk for a minute and tell him what is happening?

What I sent to the desk is a bill we will now call S. 2095, the comprehensive bill that we took to the Senate floor that Senator Dorgan alluded to. It was H.R. 6. We heard arguments that it was too expensive. This bill is no longer expensive. As a matter of fact, it is negative cost. It puts money back in the Treasury.

We heard that Republicans could not vote for it, and some Democrats, because of MTBE. That is out of this bill. It is no longer there.

I went back to the drawing board, took out direct spending, the raising of revenue was taken out of this bill, and

it was put in another bill. So there is no raising of revenue that goes in this bill. It is in the tax bill that will be up next week.

What I came to the floor of the Senate to do, and I say this to the distinguished acting leader of the minority, was to see, rather than piecemeal this bill, if we couldn't get an agreement that S. 2095 could become the subject matter and that we may have three or four or five amendments to a side. That is what I propound to the Senator from Nevada.

I know how strongly Senator Daschle feels about this energy bill as it pertains to all the items he wants, including ethanol, and all the other items I described. He would have no objection to any of them. MTBE is out of the bill. It is no longer subject to criticism because it costs too much. As a matter of fact, it is about as cheap a bill as you can get and still get an energy bill.

It does a lot of exciting things. With reference to the electric grid, it does great things to eliminate gridlock and to do other very important activities. I do not want to waste the time of Senator Reid going through this bill because I think he knows what we are doing and he knows what he is doing.

I want to save this energy bill. I want to make sure everybody knows it is still alive and that it is good what happened here because some time in the next couple of days, we are going to prove that this energy bill still lives. I do not intend to kill the amendment of Senator McCain. That is not my purpose. I want to make sure everybody knows and everybody in this country knows we have a good energy bill that is alive, and we have the tax portion alive in another area. Frankly, I did not think we could get this far. But I thank the distinguished minority leader for opening up this door.

He opened it a little bit, and I made a nice wide door and put in the whole bill. That is what this is about. A little tiny piece of the bill yielded an opportunity to put the whole bill in here. Now all I ask is that we sit down and make an agreement that this bill be looked at--I could say to the distinguished Senator who spoke about a bill that had been passed some time ago, I can almost guarantee him that if he liked that bill, he will much more like this bill than the one he voted for before. It is much better. It is much more streamline. It accommodates a lot more interests, and I believe we could get an overwhelming majority of votes for it.

I want to close by saying if there is anybody in this country who does not know there is an energy crisis, then they must have been sleepwalking for the last 6 months because we are in a crisis of high order.

I am offering a way to make sure we keep alive an energy bill that will work.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Is it possible we could take that off the reading of the amendment?

We would think that it would, but that is a guess, although it would be a pretty good guess.

First, I wish to talk about what is going on in the Senate. I could hardly believe my friend--and he is my friend; what he said about our working together is true, but I could hardly believe my ears when he suggested that the Republicans are keeping us from voting in the Senate. I mean, I have a list of what has been going on for the last 3 months. You know, it is nothing. It is not because of the Republicans, but the Democrats on every issue have said they want to filibuster it. We have had more clotures in the last 3 months than any 3 months in the history of the Republic, unless there was one after another on one bill of which I am unaware. So let's talk about that in reality.

Let me say to my good friend Senator Reid, if he thinks there is only one good provision in this bill that everybody might vote for, let me tick off what is in this bill and ask you if you think it would be 51 or 61 votes for it. Let me start: Encouraging the production of domestic oil without violating the environment; encouraging the development of more natural gas from three sources, all American; encourage the building of necessary infrastructure such as the Alaska natural gas pipeline; encourage more renewable energy--everybody speaks about it, this bill promotes it, and we can't pass it--promote energy efficiency; promote clean coal technology; increase R&D on a variety of technologies and improve our electricity grid.

These are the things in this bill. I don't care how big it is, how many pages are in it. If the distinguished minority leader can bring up one piece of it because it is popular, then I believe I ought to be entitled to bring up the rest of the bill which is also popular. Remember, there is no MTBE in it. If we would have brought that first bill here without MTBE in it, it would have already passed; we would be finished. Yet this bill is more stripped down than that. Because in addition to MTBE not being in it, I have already told you that it doesn't cost anything. I have told you the tax provisions are somewhere else, and I have just given you a litany of what is in it.

I submit, before we are finished, if it takes all night or however long you want us to be here reading it, that we will have a vote and it will be a cloture on this bill and I submit there will be two of them. There will be one on Senator Daschle's and one on Senator Domenici's. I believe Senator Daschle's will fail and I believe mine will pass, and what we will have is we will have the hope and have alive the idea that a good Energy bill, which we have gone through and swept with all kinds of brushes to make it a bill that everybody likes, will be pending before us.

I am hopeful that in the process we will not have taken so much time that Senator McCain can't get his bill done. I am very hopeful of that. I hope Senator McCain's staff understands that all I have been speaking of, unless we have to stay here all night and tomorrow to get this read, I am looking for the time, looking ahead here and figuring that you can get your amendment done and we can get an important decision by this institution, in light of the terrific price of gasoline, whether they want an energy bill or not. That is going to be a good one to watch and it will be a good one to have a vote on, I will tell you.

How much time do I have remaining?

And how much does Senator Reid have?

Do you want to yield our time back?

I would take 1 in addition in case you say something that needs to be rebutted.

Certainly.

Senator, I yielded to you without knowing you were going to use all the time I had remaining.

If there is anybody I would like to do that for, I would do it for you, but how much time do I have remaining?

Senator, I am going to try to answer your question when I get back on my feet, but I yield the floor at this point.

Senator, I can only do that in dollars. The original bill cost $31-plus billion; this one costs negative $1.2 billion.

No, it does not.

Sure.

Could the Senator tell me what you said about votes in the next couple of days? I didn't get it.

So you said about 2 days? I still didn't get that.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I don't quite understand, I say to both Senators. I want to help, but I don't understand.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Yes, I yield.

Of course.

Mr. President, I have up to 10 minutes, but I do not believe I will use that, if anybody is wondering.

I rise to speak about a disaster that has occurred within the last 24 hours in the country of North Korea. We now have on the wire service recognition of the fact that there was a train wreck in North Korea where two trains ran into each other. It appears that between 1,000 and 3,000 people were killed. One report says 1,000 and another report says 3,000. In the meantime, the North Koreans have cut off the telephone lines to the area and have closed the border, so considering the nature of the country, I do not know when we will find out how many.

The reason I rose to talk about it is because the substances that we have been told were in those trains do not come close to the explosive power of liquefied natural gas. They are some kind of a liquefied petroleum and another product like propane, and it must have been sufficient power for this to ignite and blow up.

Why would I bring this subject up on the Senate floor? Well, I say to my colleagues, the Nation we live in has been on such an absurd path with reference to diversifying our energy resources that we are currently thinking about using liquefied natural gas in large quantities to take the place of natural gas, which is getting higher and higher in demand and less and less in terms of supply. I believe we ought to get on with producing as much natural gas from our own sources as possible. I believe the natural gas from the State of Alaska ought to be brought on board and we ought to help pay for the pipeline which will be the largest and most expensive construction job in our history, but it will transport voluminous quantities of natural gas and it will be ours. It will not be liquefied natural gas from Algeria, Tunisia, or wherever it comes from.

We are inviting the opposite. We are inviting States, principally in the eastern part of the United States--at least it is not the West or the South again. But I would like to make sure other parts of the country understand that if they have been holding out and not wanting us to get this energy bill passed because they think this is some easier way--like we can solve this with wind instead of natural gas-- you know it just is not true. We cannot produce enough wind energy to take the place of the natural gas shortage we are going to have if we don't get on with producing it as fast as we can, in as large quantities as we can, and from safe sources, safe in terms of reliability and safe in terms of the environment.

We are going to hear more about this. I am sorry that I come to the Senate floor with such drastic statements about energy and the destruction of people and property because of this collision involving energy sources. But I can tell you, what the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been suggesting we do is so much less risky than this, this fuel that exploded, that I almost wonder what is it going to take to bring us to our senses.

There are Northern and Eastern States saying, once they hear about LNG, they don't want it either. But I can tell you, there is not going to be any gas for parts of our country and it is not going to be imported from the West to the East; it is going to be brought to where it is needed. We are going to see people who are now talking with permittees who want to build plants, refineries, bases where you can harbor and hold liquefied natural gas.

Unless one of those trains had LNG, and I don't think it did, we haven't seen anything yet. If you killed 1,000 and wounded 1,000 and blew up a town with two trains running into each other and one of them was not LNG, then whatever we know about will be less volatile than LNG. So we could be looking at a more disastrous situation.

I also suggest while we are talking about terrorism, just think of that. If we have to bring in shipload after shipload of natural gas, just think of what we are going to have to do to make sure it is not part of a terrorist plan to blow up part of our country.

I for one hope we don't have to bring very much in, but I am sure, with what has been going on--and I am sure the occupant of the chair shares my concern--we ought to be very careful. We ought to take on the issue of, can we get some nuclear powerplants built in a safer way than in the past? Can we produce some truly clean coal-burning plants? We can bring solar, wind, and geothermal on. We can give them subsidies, all that are in this bill which we will not bring up today.

I think for those who are looking at that terrible country, terrible in terms of the nature of the existence of the people in North Korea, we can do nothing but shake our heads in fear and trepidation. I just finished reading a book about North Korea. As a Senator from a free country, to just read what is going on in that country just scares me to death. How the people can be so ravaged, so disgraced as human beings by that regime, and then to have something like this happen to them makes me terribly unhappy to be part of leadership in this world, that we can still let that eyesore of terrible proportions exist. Here is another one--3,000 people. Just absolutely pathetic.

I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I did not hear the Chair.

Yes. I understood I was going to speak next. How much time do I have?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I followed with interest the media comments and partisan criticism of the President in light of testimony from a variety of individuals before the 9/11 Commission. I find the criticism almost laughable, in some cases. Here is what I gather is the essence of the criticism prior to the attacks on 9/11:

One, President Bush didn't care about terrorism, didn't care about it enough, but if he did, he didn't want to know about it.

Second, President Bush didn't know about terrorism, but if he knew, he didn't know enough to do anything.

Third, President Bush didn't do anything about terrorism, but if he did, it wasn't enough.

Finally, President Bush and the agencies of Government knew about the pending attacks on September 11, 2001, but didn't do anything about it.

Or President Bush and the agencies of Government didn't know in advance about terrorism plans for September 11, but they should have.

Just laying out this summary of the charges shows the contradictory, almost ludicrous nature of these attacks. How outrageously partisan this all has become.

Let me talk a minute about the way I see it.

First, let's for a minute assume that 9/11 did not occur. Remember, I am going to talk for a minute about the President, America, and the Congress as if 9/11 did not occur.

Mr. President, 9/11 did not occur, but the President got a report from the CIA, FBI, NSA, and others, telling him al-Qaida was getting anxious, they were a little bit worried about things; the group is moving around a little bit too much; they may be thinking about attacking America. But no 9/11 has

ever occurred for my hypothesis about how I see it.

The President says: In light of this report, we better get ready and we better take this issue to the American people. So the President gets ready, and he makes a speech to the American people. There has been no 9/11, so he cannot talk about that.

He gets up and says: Things are a little dangerous. Al-Qaida is moving around too much. I am a little worried about America, so I think we ought to do something about it.

No 9/11 has ever occurred.

The President says to the American people: I want to set up a department, and I want 45,000 people hired so we can check on everybody who gets on an airplane in the United States.

Mr. President, 45,000 people and everybody who gets on an airplane in America is going to be checked is the first request.

The second request: The PATRIOT Act--which has been discussed this morning--I need that, I want that, says the President.

Third, I need a homeland security agency. It will be big because this is a big problem, says he; $26 billion will be put into one agency so they can work on homeland security.

Can we imagine the President of the United States taking that to the American people if we did not have 9/11? I can imagine it. In fact, I could ask the American people, What do you think would have happened? You know what they would say? Nothing would have happened. They would have laughed at the President. They would have said: Who does he think he is. He wants to search everybody who is getting on an airplane? He wants this new extraordinary power, some say, under the PATRIOT Act. He wants this new department.

Do you know what we would have said in the Senate: You will never get that, Mr. President. Who do you think you are, a dictator? You want to check everybody who gets on an airplane in the United States? Never heard of such a thing. That is the truth of the matter. That is what would have happened. He would have gotten nothing. I just do not believe that this Congress, especially with the attitude I am seeing now--which is totally obstructionist, a minority but a large minority is trying to stop everything--can you imagine what they would have done if the President of the United States, without 9/11, would have requested all these items? I cannot.

The point I am trying to make is, it is rather absurd to talk about which week did the President know, how much did he know, should he have known more; if he knew more, shouldn't he have done more? I have already gone through those, but I go through them again because, as a matter of fact, had he known a little more, had he known it sooner, had he had more reports from the CIA, nothing would have happened in terms of changing our laws.

I am going to carp on one of them. Can you imagine Congress giving the President of the United States the authority to check everybody who gets on an airplane in the United States because he had some reports showing that al-Qaida was dangerous, al-Qaida might be looking at some activity in the United States? Of course not. Anybody who believes we would have done that for this President or any President is just not facing reality.

As a matter of fact, it is my honest belief that if we did not have 9/11, we would have passed none--not one or two--none of the extraordinary measures that were passed because of 9/11.

It seems to me that for people to now run around and wonder and speculate about whether the President knew enough, whether he should have known more because if he did he could have gotten all these things that we are talking about, that is an absolute absurdity.

Remember, we had a Senator from the State of Georgia. Remember what he did on the Senate floor? He resisted homeland security. He resisted it on the basis that he was not sure whether they should put unions in as a mandatory notion with reference to those people who were going to be part of this new agency of our Government. He lost an election on the basis that he favored unions over the Department of Homeland Security. We then got a sufficient vote to pass it. It was that tough, even after 9/11.

I close by repeating that this Senator does not believe it is possible that we would have passed this legislation that everybody is saying the President should have worked on, he should have done more on, he should have worked on this, he should have gotten America more prepared, when as a matter of fact this Senate would probably have done nothing had we not had 9/11.

So is it not ludicrous, is it not rather outrageous that we are spending time trying to figure out if he knew, when did he know, he should have known more, when the facts are that it would not have made any difference because we would not have done anything? We would not have done anything unless and until al-Qaida had attacked the United States.

If anybody would like to argue that point, I would be delighted. Does anybody believe we would have said we are going to check every American who gets on an airplane if we had not had 9/11? Imagine what they would have called the President. They would have called him every name under the Sun and probably would have ended up asking, Who does he think he is, a dictator? He wants to take over the airlines and inspect every American? Americans would be saying to their Congressmen, Do not let him do that. It is crazy that they are going to search us before we get on an airplane.

The point is, there is no question that we acted after 9/11. The President acted after 9/11. Whether he did something before 9/11 or not seems to me to border--as a question, it seems to be one that we know the answer to. Even if he knew more, even if he knew sooner, we would have done nothing.

So why is so much being made about that period of time and talking about the 1 or 2 weeks and was there a breakdown in communication or not? Look, we all understand we were not on a war footing. We did not get there until we had been attacked. I do not think America would have gotten ready before the attacks. Maybe after this al-Qaida attack we might, but, frankly, I believe any President, and in particular this one, would have been attacked viciously had he been talking about searching every citizen, every person, who was planning to go on an airplane, or if he would have said, I want to amend the rules and I want to call it the PATRIOT Act and we are going to have a lot more authority to track people, to listen to their conversations, and do the kinds of things the PATRIOT Act provides.

So it seems to me we ought to get on with the report and a study that says how were we deficient--not whether this President knew, when did he know, what did he do--with reference to our laws, our rules, and our ability to do something about a terrorist attack.

I am sorry to say we did what we did only because we got attacked. But we would not have done it otherwise. Whatever the President knew or did not know or whenever he knew it, we would not have responded with the kinds of things we ultimately responded with. Some of them took a little longer than one might expect, but nonetheless the truth of the matter is we do not need a group of partisans to take over that Commission that was appointed in honesty and with earnest intentions. We do not need a commission spending all of its time trying to get to the President politically about what he did or did not do, when he did it, when he should have, when if we looked inward we would say, Well, Congress most probably would have done nothing had we not had 9/11.

I hope the Commission thinks about that when they are writing their report. I hope they think about the reality of preparing ourselves for terrorism. I believe, as I have said this morning, we would have done nothing had we not had 9/11. I do not think any President would have succeeded in getting anything done if we did not have 9/11.

It would be interesting for the Commission to look at the matter that way, to look at it from the standpoint of what would have happened, what could we have done, what is the reality of getting anything done prior to 9/11 actually happening.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of April as Child Abuse Prevention Month.

Child abuse continues to be a significant problem in the United States. It was estimated that in 2001, 903,000 children were the victims of child abuse or neglect. Child abuse is a crime perpetrated on the innocent and the defenseless.

In 2003, there were 17,345 substantiated child abuse or neglect cases in New Mexico. We must protect these children who cannot protect themselves. By acknowledging April as Child Abuse Prevention Month, we are increasing awareness in the hopes that no more children live in fear.

Across this Nation, numerous individuals and organizations dedicate countless hours of selfless work in the fight against child abuse. Many of the organizations that work to end child abuse began at the local level. I would like to acknowledge one of these organizations from my home State in Las Cruces, NM. The child abuse awareness team consists of around 40 members who recognized a need in their community and resolved to make a change. This team of volunteers, law enforcement agents, school personnel and social service agency representatives, continually strives to protect the children in Dona Ana County.

The child abuse awareness team educates the community about child abuse prevention and reporting child abuse and neglect, promotes enforcement of child abuse and neglect laws, and provides advocacy for child abuse victims. They believe the most effective child abuse prevention programs succeed when the entire community is involved. The child abuse awareness team has developed this support system within the community by creating partnerships among social service agencies, schools, religious and civic organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the business community.

The child abuse awareness team is taking the right steps in preventing child abuse incidents. I would like to specifically recognize the founder of this community organization Jesus Frietze, a social worker who saw a need in his community and took action. It is noble actions, from individuals like Jesus, who make a difference not only in the local communities but in our States and our Nation.

By taking this month to recognize the problem of child abuse, I hope we will all do our part to combat this epidemic.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act of 2004.

I thank Majority Leader Frist for proactively addressing this crisis. Across America, health care providers, especially health care providers that work in high-risk services such as obstetricians, gynecologists, and emergency personnel, have faced difficulty obtaining affordable medical liability coverage. Doctors are being hit with dramatic increases in the premiums they pay for liability insurance--if insurance is even available in their area.

These soaring costs are depriving patient's access to crucial medical care, especially in rural areas, where some services are already in short supply. In a number of instances, doctors are forced to relocate their practice as hospitals and physicians find it increasingly difficult to continue offering certain services. Without real reform, more and more Americans will find that health care services are simply going to disappear from their communities. And, in my opinion, this is unacceptable, especially when a reasonable solution is at hand.

There is a map I have seen in this chamber. This map is of the United States, and each of the States is color-coded: red if the State is in crisis, yellow if the State is showing problems, and white if the State is currently OK.

I am very proud that my State, New Mexico, is one of the six states that is white. New Mexico is OK because in 1976, the State legislature recognized there was a problem with medical malpractice, and they passed reform. Part of this reform included caps on noneconomic damages. And, as the map shows, it has worked. States with realistic limits on noneconomic damages are faring better. Physicians in most states with caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases pay lower insurance premiums. Reasonable caps keep premiums from rising quickly.

Unquestionably, truly injured parties must have access to our courts to adjudicate their claims. And injured patients must be compensated for their economic damages such as cost of future medical care and lost wages. However, trial lawyers have taken advantage of our civil justice system to further their own interests. The explosion of malpractice lawsuits and subsequent growth of astronomical jury awards have tremendously increased the costs of medical malpractice insurance. Premium increases have jumped as much as 81 percent over the last 2 years, according to some insurers. Frivolous lawsuits combined with excessive judgments are destroying the doctor-patient relationship and driving professionals out of medical practice all together. This reality has terrible consequences for all Americans.

The bill we are debating today is real reform. It provides an unlimited amount of damages for actual economic loss. It caps noneconomic damages, it has more reasonable punitive damages awards, a uniform statute of limitations, and it provides flexibility to States by allowing State laws to supercede Federal limits on damages.

This bill creates directives for a malpractice system that currently is unpredictable and largely random. The rising cost of medical malpractice insurance is a serious threat to the well being of American citizens and our Nation's healthcare system. It is time for Congress to pass meaningful legislation that will address our Nation's health care crisis.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce an uncontroversial piece of legislation that I hope will receive prompt committee action and will make its way quickly to the President's desk for his signature.

I would first like to familiarize the Senate with the important mission and related work of the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in Las Cruces, NM. The Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in North America and contains a great diversity of unique plant and animal species. The ecosystem makes up an indispensable part of southwest's treasured ecological diversity. As such, it is important that we teach our young ones an appreciation for New Mexico's biological diversity and impart upon them the value of this ecological treasure.

The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park is a non-profit institution that has spent the past six years providing hands-on science education to K- 12th graders. To achieve this mission, the Nature Park provides classroom presentation, field trips, schoolyard ecology projects and teacher work shops. The Nature Park serves more than 11,000 students and 600 teachers annually. This instruction will enable our future leaders to make informed decisions about how best to manage these valuable resources. I commend those at the Nature Park for taking the initiative to create and administer a wonderfully successful program that has been so beneficial to the surrounding community.

The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park was granted a 1,000 acre easement in 1998 at the southern boundary of USDA-Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS) property just north of Las Cruces, NM. This easement will expire soon. It is important that we provide them a permanent location so that they are able to continue their valuable mission.

The bill I introduce today would transfer an insignificant amount of land: 1,000 of 193,000 USDA acres to the Desert Nature Park so that they may continue their important work. The USDA-ARS has approved the land transfer, noting the critically important mission of the Desert Park. I have no doubt that senators on both sides of the aisle will recognize the importance of this land transfer.

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