Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 28, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearings is to review the Grazing programs of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, including proposed changes to grazing regulations, and the status of grazing regulations, and the status of grazing permit renewals, monitoring programs and allotment restocking plans.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Protecting Copyright and Innovation in a Post-Grokster World'' on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Mary Beth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office, Washington, DC; and the Honorable Debra Wong Yang, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California and Chair of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Cyber/Intellectual Property Subcommittee, Los Angeles, CA. Panel II: Marty Roe, Lead Singer, Diamond Rio, Nashville, TN; Cary Sherman, President, Recording Industry Association of America, Washington, DC; Gary Shapiro, President and Chief Executive Officer, Consumer Electronics Association, Arlington, VA; Mark Lemley, William H. Neukom, Professor of Law, Stanford University Law School and Director Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology Stanford, CA; Ali Aydar, Chief Operating Officer, SNOCAP, San Francisco, CA; and Sam Yagan, President, MetaMachine, Inc. (developer of eDonkey and Overnet) New York, NY.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Indian Housing.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``Recovering from Hurricane Katrina: Responding to the Immediate Needs of Its Victims.''

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Darfur Revisited: The International Response.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Hurricane Katrina: Community Rebuilding Needs and Effectiveness of Past Proposals.''

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing to discuss the role of science in environmental policy making.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 28, at 11:30 a.m. to consider pending calendar business. Agenda Agenda Item 3: S. 166--To amend the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 to reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River Conservancy, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 4: S. 206--To designate the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 5: S. 213--To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to Rio Arriba County, NM. Agenda Item 6: S. 242--To establish four memorials to the Space Shuttle Columbia in the State of Texas. Agenda Item 7: S. 251--To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a water resource feasibility study for the Little Butte/Bear Creek Sub-basins in Oregon. Agenda Item 8: S. 592--To extend the contract for the Glendo Unit of the Missouri River Basin Project in the State of Wyoming. Agenda Item 9: S. 652--To provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, PA, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin. Agenda Item 11: S. 761--To rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an international authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the establishment of this National Conservation Area, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 12: S. 777--To designate Catoctin Mountain Park in the State of Maryland as the ``Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area,'' and for other purposes. Agenda Item 13: S. 819--To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs of the Pactola Dam and Reservoir, SD, to reflect increased demands for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes. Agenda Item 14: S. 891--To extend the water service contract for the Ainsworth Unit, Sandhills Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, NE. Agenda Item 15: S. 895--To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a rural water supply program in the Reclamation States to provide a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural residents. Agenda Item 16: S. 955--To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including in the National Park System certain sites in Williamson County, TN, relating to the Battle of Franklin. Agenda Item 17: S. 958--To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail. Agenda Item 18: S. 1154--To extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, to provide improved visitor services at the park, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 19: S. 1170--To establish the Fort Stanton-Snowy River National Cave Conservation Area. Agenda Item 20: S. 1238--To amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to provide for the conduct of projects that protect forests, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 21: S. 1338--To require the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Geological Survey, to conduct a study on groundwater resources in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 23: H.R. 126--To amend Public Law 89-366 to allow for an adjustment in the number of free roaming horses permitted in Cape Lookout National Seashore. Agenda Item 24: H.R. 409--To provide for the exchange of land within the Sierra National Forest, CA, and for other purposes. Agenda Item 26: H.R. 539--To designate certain National Forest System land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Agenda Item 27: H.R. 584--To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to recruit volunteers to assist with, or facilitate, the activities of various agencies and offices of the Department of the Interior. Agenda Item 28: H.R. 606--To authorize appropriations to the Secretary of the Interior for the restoration of the Angel Island Immigration Station in the State of California. Agenda Item 29: H.R. 1101--To revoke a Public Land Order with respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, CA. Agenda Item 30: H.R. 2362--To reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. In addition, the Committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 28, 2005, at 10 a.m., on S. 1114--Professional Athletes Drug Testing bill and S. 1334--Professional Sports Integrity and Accountability Act, in Hart 216.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today, like my colleague who spoke just before me, to support the nomination of John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. To those who know me, to those who have heard me talk on this subject, this is no great surprise. But voting on a Supreme Court nomination is a very rare task. It is more historic now, as the Senate will consider a nominee for the top job of the Court. The question I ask today is, Why should America care about this debate? This debate is more significant than a lifetime appointment of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This debate is more significant than the influence that one single individual brings who is chosen. This debate is about future decisions that will affect the lives of every American, that will affect our children and our children's children. From our civil liberties, to property rights, to questions of life and death, to safety in communities, to the very basic freedoms, there is no area in our daily lives that is not somehow affected by the judicial decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The decisions made by the Court today will have a lasting effect long after we have gone from this institution. It is essential, absolutely essential, that we confirm not only competent, impartial judges, but those who are the very brightest and those who are good citizens and understand the task for which they have been nominated and confirmed. Over the course of the last several weeks we have all had the opportunity to hear from legal experts, from political analysts, about Judge Roberts and the chances of the success of his nomination and his confirmation. We have had a process of very detailed hearings where our colleagues, many of whom are lawyers, have asked the most appropriate questions, with a lot of thought, a lot of time to deliver the questions, and we have seen the response of a brilliant lawyer, with no notes, quote case law from years past that appropriately answered the questions that did not affect future cases the Court might hear. Now, I am not a lawyer and perhaps I do not judge Judge Roberts' legal background the same way lawyers might judge it, but I do understand people. I understand when I meet somebody who is a good person. I have met Judge Roberts. This is a good person. This is an individual in whom America can be proud when they refer to him as Chief Justice. A couple weeks ago I had the opportunity to have Judge Roberts in my office. We talked about his background, his life experiences, we talked about our families. I did not quiz him about legal precedent or court rulings. I did not present him with hypothetical cases or his position on hot topics of the day. That, quite frankly, was not the ground I was focused to go on. Personally, as a husband and a father, I wanted to know where Judge Roberts truly stood and if he understood the job he has been asked to do. I wanted to know if he understood the responsibilities not just as a lawyer, not just as a Justice, but as a husband and as a father, and the implications of the decisions he would rule on and how they would affect not just his family but in a real way the people of North Carolina. As Senators, we are all responsible for constituencies. I am responsible for more than 8\1/2\ million individuals in North Carolina, and I wanted to know, quite frankly, if Judge Roberts intends to preserve our Nation's constitutional principles by interpreting law, not by making law. I am proud today to tell you, based upon the answers he gave to me in his testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee, I am confident he will do just that--interpret the law, not write the law. Judge Roberts, as every person has heard, has the academic and the professional credentials to serve not only as a Supreme Court Justice but as Chief Justice. There is something that concerns me today. It concerns me, and it should concern the American people: This vote will not be unanimous. This vote will be far from unanimous based upon the reports from Senators. Why? Politics. I am not sure it has ever permeated the process to the degree it has in this. As we stand here today, with one of the brightest nominees, ready to confirm, some in this institution are already suggesting the next nominee has no chance. There is not a person who has been nominated. There is a group of names that has been talked about. I might remind Senators that Judge Roberts was never talked about in the group that was purported to come up in the President's first nomination. Yet some suggest we are going to move the bar even farther for the next nominee who comes through. The divisiveness has to stop in this institution. We choose the best and the brightest to serve this country. If we consistently move that bar, if we consistently dig to find things that no other Congress has looked for, if we are not careful, no one will want that job. If we are not careful, the best and the brightest legal minds in this country who would serve on the bench and serve with distinction, regardless of the party they are from, when they get that call, will say, Mr. President, I want to pass. I can't put my family through it. I can't put myself through it. The risk of doing it is too great to everything around me, to make a commitment to serve my country. I ask all of us, what message are we sending to our children when the best and the brightest pass, when they elect not to go through the process we in this body have control of? This is a defining time for the Senate. This will determine who is willing in the future to actually serve their country and to serve in one of the single most important areas, the U.S. Supreme Court. I am confident Judge Roberts holds the academic credentials, he holds the professional credentials but, more importantly, I am confident today that Judge Roberts is a good man. He deserves the support of every Member of the Senate to become the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a North Carolinian who passed away on June 12, 2005, but will always be dear to our hearts. Jim Bernstein's work ended as it began--in selfless service to underserved communities in need. A career arc that began with volunteer service with the U.S. Peace Corps in Morocco ended with post- retirement volunteer service to the North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services' rural health initiatives. In between, Jim provided the Nation and the State of North Carolina with more than 30 years of distinguished leadership in a variety of health and social policy arenas, including rural health, health care finance, public health, social service delivery, medicaid, nonprofit management and health care system innovation. After earning a bachelor of arts degree in political economy from John Hopkins University in 1964 and a masters of hospital administration from the University of Michigan in 1968, Jim began his lifelong health care service as the director of Indian Health Services for Northern New Mexico. In 1970, he was awarded a 3-year fellowship in the U.S. Public Health Service, and relocated to North Carolina to concentrate his studies on rural health and fuel a passion that would serve as the basis for the next 35 years of his career. In 1973, while still in his 20's, Jim became the director of the Nation's first Office of Rural Health, located in North Carolina. In that role--which he held for nearly 30 years--Jim spearheaded the development and implementation of a medical recruitment service designed to help rural and medically underserved communities recruit physicians and other health care providers. Since then, more than 2,500 physicians, nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants, dentists and other health care professionals have been recruited to North Carolina. He also directed the development of 83 community-owned health centers, and led the creation of Community Care of North Carolina, a care management program that today provides access to high-quality, cost- effective care to more than 643,000 North Carolinians. Those efforts-- and countless others--have positioned the State's rural health function as a nationally recognized model of excellence. Throughout his career, Jim served as a director, chairman or consultant to more than two dozen professional organizations, including: National Rural Health Association, where he was president from May 1994 to May 1995; National Advisory Committee on Rural Health--U.S. Public Health Service, Office of Rural Health Policy, 1994 to 1995; Institute of Medicine--Committee for Guidance in Designing a National Health Care Disparities Report, Washington, DC 2001 to 2005; Commissioner, Prospective Payment Assessment Commission, where he was selected by the U.S. Congress to advise the body on Medicare finance; 1990 to 1996; chairman, Advisory Panel to the Office of Technology Assessment's Study on Rural Health Care, U.S. Congress; 1988; Delegate, National Medical Tour to the People's Republic of China, 1978; Consultant, National Academy of Sciences/Institute of Medicine--Task Force on Study of Health Needs in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt; 1978. His extraordinary commitment to lifelong community service to these and dozens of other organizations garnered him the North Carolina Order of the Long Leaf Pine in 2005. In 1982, upon the recommendation of a State legislative study commission, Jim helped establish the North Carolina Foundation for Advanced Health Programs, Inc, NCFAHP. From 1982 to 2005, he served as the foundation's president, helping it spearhead projects targeting the health care needs of low-income underserved communities. Under Jim's leadership, NCFAHP secured more than 40 grants totaling more than $17 million, allowing it to implement dozens of programs for enhancing health care delivery across the State. He also served as national director of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Practice Sights Program through NCFAHP. Before retiring in 2005, Jim had, since 2001, served as assistant secretary for Health at the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services. In that role, he oversaw the North Carolina Departments of Facility Services, Medical Assistance, Mental Health, Minority Health, Public Health and Rural Health. He also served as an adjunct professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Department of Social and Administrative Medicine; 1979 to 2005 and as an adjunct assistant professor at the School of Medicine at Duke University in Durham, NC, Department of Community and Family Medicine; 1978 to 2005. Jim's impact on North Carolina will never be forgotten. He was a champion for rural health car and the belief that every individual should have access to high-quality health care.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I also thank my colleagues for bringing the important work of the Afghan Medical Relief Foundation to the attention of the chairman. The AMRF has successfully trained 16 health care professionals to diagnose and treat diabetes, developed a uniform patient management model, and increased knowledge of diabetes among the diabetic and general population.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my thanks and appreciation, and those of all North Carolinians, to Colonel Charles ``Ray'' Alexander, Jr., Commander of the Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington, NC district. Today is Colonel Alexander's last day as commanding officer of the district. While we celebrate his retirement with his family, we will miss the impact he has had on North Carolina and the Nation. Colonel Alexander has distinguished himself with exceptionally meritorious service as district commander since 2002. Under his command, the district continued construction of the Wilmington Harbor deepening project and met the target for delivering deep water to the State port docks in January 2004 despite numerous fiscal challenges. The Wilmington Harbor deepening is the largest civil works project in the district's history and a very important navigation project, providing economic benefit to the State. Additionally, the deeper channel has been an asset to the local military installations in support of the global war on terror. Under Colonel Alexander's direction, the district has been involved and successful in protecting the Nation's environment. Numerous environmental enhancement projects, including the Roanoke Island Festival Park aquatic habitat restoration and protection project, are testament to this highly successful program. This and many other projects earned the district the 2004 Coastal America Partnership Award and North Carolina Coast Federal Pelican Award, the 2003 Chief of Engineers' Environmental Award for product delivery team design and construction of an island estuarine habitat, and nomination and subsequent recognition as the North Carolina Conservationist Partner of 2003 by the North Carolina Land Trust Council. A district project delivery team under Colonel Alexander's command also earned an environmental award from the Environmental Protection Agency for its work cleaning up EPA facilities in the Research Triangle Park. Colonel Alexander also executed a systematic plan to improve relationships with local, State, and Federal entities. Locally, we completed renourishment of Kure, Carolina, and Bald Head Island Beaches and a project to reinstitute the use of dredged materials on Bogue Banks. Additionally, the district created a water management committee to meet the needs of over 40 agencies and many private citizens. Colonel Alexander also led the efforts in 2003 to provide exceptionally responsive emergency management services during Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina, including the highly successful reconstruction of vital road infrastructure for the Cape Hatteras breach. He also led the Wilmington effort in aiding the recovery from the recordbreaking 2004 hurricane storm season. I would also like to commend Colonel Alexander for his support of the Army Corps outside his district and in the war on terror. His selflessness was exhibited by his leadership for the $84 million recovery effort in 2004 after Hurricane Ivan devastated Alabama. This highly complex operation included providing emergency power, ice, water, housing, debris collection and reduction, roofing, and technical assistance to the citizens of Alabama following the storm, which made landfall 700 miles from the district headquarters. Hundreds of Corps of Engineers employees from all over the Nation were brought in to this well executed operation. Colonel Alexander's leadership and commitment in the global war on terror is evident in his ability to motivate more than 20 team members to volunteer to serve abroad as members of South Atlantic Division's Forward Engineer Support Teams, Task Force Restore Iraqi Electricity, the Gulf Region Division, and the Afghanistan District. The number continues to grow and several members have served on multiple deployments. In closing, generations of North Carolinians who have never met Colonel Alexander will benefit from the results of his work. At this special time in his career, I wish him all the best and thank him for a job well done.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, the Naval Hospital at Camp Lejeune, NC, has selected LCDR Elizabeth J. French to be the hospital's Officer of the Year for 2004. She serves as the department head for the inpatient obstetrics department at the hospital. U.S. Navy Captain Richard C. Welton presented Commander French with a Letter of Commendation for her ``dedication to this Command and continual support of superb family centered maternal and childcare services in the Obstetric Department sets the standard.'' I am proud of Elizabeth French's outstanding service and I ask unanimous consent that Captain Welton's Letter of Commendation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I probably won't be as eloquent as the senior Senator from West Virginia, but rest assured that I am just as passionate about the issue before this body. I rise today, after months of countless discussions with interested parties, farmers, manufacturers, textile workers, and small businesses, to voice my support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It is not a decision that I have reached lightly. While some in my State continue to raise concerns with this agreement and trade in general, I believe this agreement is in the long-term best interests of North Carolina and our Nation. When I wake up in the morning, I look forward, I don't look back; I look to the future. Simply put, Mr. President, voting no on this agreement would be the easy thing to do. However, I believe voting yes is, in fact, the right choice for the State of North Carolina and its economic future. It is only through agreements with our friends, neighbors, and allies that we will be able to compete with Asia. Many will argue that this agreement is a jobs loser, and I certainly understand that feeling and respect those opinions. After all, my home State of North Carolina is undergoing a significant economic transition which is changing the nature of our job market. However, I believe CAFTA will provide opportunities for economic growth in my State down the road. CAFTA will provide garment makers in the region with a critical advantage in competing with Asia--particularly Chinese--garment manufacturers. This is crucial for one very important reason: those regional garment makers buy their yarn, their fabric, from American companies. Many of those companies are based in North Carolina. Those American companies buy their cotton from American farmers. This is not the case in Asia. I am persuaded by the impressive level of trade between North Carolina and Central America today. North Carolina exported almost $2 billion worth of merchandise to Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua in 2004 alone. Only Florida and Texas exported more. My State's exports to the region last year accounted for almost 10 percent of our total exports. These exports translate into real jobs in North Carolina. I am also persuaded by the side agreements that I know the President is well aware of--side agreements intended to address shortcomings in the underlying agreement. Our new Trade Representative, my friend, Rob Portman, has committed he will utilize the CAFTA amendment mechanism to pursue a rule-of-origin change for pockets and linings, helping ensure that $100 million in U.S. pocketing and lining exports to the region are not lost. The administration has also reaffirmed its commitment to negotiate an aggressive customs enforcement agreement with Mexico before the cumulation provisions of CAFTA can be used. Finally, Nicaragua has committed to allocate its trade preference levels, or TPLs, to its current nonqualifying U.S. trade, ensuring that existing U.S. business is not impacted by this provision. I am not the only one persuaded by these side agreements. On June 27, 10 organizations, representing textile and apparel businesses, wrote Members of the House and Senate in support of CAFTA. Those organizations wrote: This agreement is vitally important for the United States textile and apparel industry and the more than 600,000 workers who are still employed in the United States in this industry. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, current agricultural trade between the United States and the region can be a one-way street. That street is often closed to our farmers by regional barriers. CAFTA will remove those barriers, increasing access for U.S. farmers. With exports accounting for 20 percent of North Carolina's farm cash receipts, almost $1.5 billion, my State's farmers stand to make tremendous gains in Central American markets. The key to making this trade agreement an economic success for North Carolina, though, is enforcement. I am a proponent of free trade, but I am an even bigger proponent of fair trade. The rules must be enforced. I intend to make sure that neither this Nation nor our partner countries turn a blind eye to the provisions set out and the assurances made in CAFTA. Several of my colleagues have come down to the Senate floor to express their concerns with China. Let me be specific. I have concerns about China, too. I voted against normal trade relations status for China eight times as a Member of the other body. Hindering our Nation's trade with other nations to get back at China is not the answer. Enforcing our laws and enforcing the provisions of the trade agreement with China is the answer to China. If I held up a chart today and suggested that chart listed every time China had voluntarily broken our trade agreements, it would be blank. If we want trade to work, we as a country have to enforce the agreements we have with our partners. This is not the China free-trade agreement. It is the Central American Free Trade Agreement. We need to stop holding our friends in Central America and elsewhere accountable for China's unlawful practices. We should not let China get away with unfair trade practices, and we must strengthen our trade enforcement efforts. If China is going to break the rules, let's call them on it. Let's make them pay for it. But we should not make other countries the scapegoat for China. In the 2 years since CAFTA was signed, I have worked to better understand the agreement and the impacts it will have on my State. Today I am convinced there is no choice--no choice--but to look to the future and approve this agreement. The new and emerging sectors of North Carolina's economy, from computer manufacturing to biotechnology and established sectors such as financial services and agriculture, depend on agreements such as this. What makes CAFTA fairly unique is the recognition by many in the textile and apparel industry that CAFTA represents one of their last, best chances to compete with Asia. We cannot afford to wall ourselves off from the rest of the world if we hope to compete in a global marketplace and to create jobs in the United States. I urge my colleagues to look at the long-term benefits of prosperous, successful, established democracies to our south and the economic opportunities it provides for our own citizens here. If we fail to look to our friends in the south, we will only be strengthening our competitors to the west. I urge my colleagues at the end of this debate to vote in favor of the CAFTA agreement, and I urge my colleagues to stay vigilant, whether it is CAFTA or China, as it relates to enforcement mechanisms with our trade partners. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, North Carolina textile and apparel firms are by no means unanimous in their support of CAFTA. I clearly understand that. But when companies as diverse as Sara Lee, Russell, Glen Raven, National Textiles, and Parkdale, companies that have not agreed before, agree on this, we should take notice, and I have. Without CAFTA, more and more garment manufacturing will simply find its way to China to be manufactured. As Central American manufacturers are forced out by Chinese manufacturers, more American jobs will be put at risk for the simple fact that Chinese manufacturers do not use American yarn, they do not use American fabric, and they do not use American cotton. I am persuaded by agriculture's support for this agreement, and in a letter to me recently, North Carolina's Farm Bureau president Larry Wooten said: On balance, the CAFTA-DR is a positive trade deal for North Carolina agriculture. It will boost our State's number one industry by helping North Carolina's farm families develop new markets for their products. North Carolina Farm Bureau strongly supports CAFTA-DR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005. I introduced this legislation with Senators Hatch, Dodd, Ensign, and Reed yesterday and I appreciate their interest in this important legislation. The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act will help provide adult stem cell transplant material for those patients who need them, and also provide adult stem cells for scientific research. The House has passed similar legislation and we need to act in a timely matter on this bill. The legislation that we introduced yesterday also reauthorizes the National Marrow Donor Program, an important program helping to provide adult bone marrow to sick individuals. Unfortunately, thousands of Americans have died because there was not an appropriate donor of bone marrow. However, umbilical cord blood may provide an alternative to bone marrow transplantation. Ultimately, given the current limitations of bone marrow transplantation, cord blood could become a more widespread lifesaving therapy. I am proud of the valuable work and research taking place in North Carolina. In particular, Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg of Duke University, the director of the Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplant Program, is leading the fight on monumental diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's. Dr. Kurtzberg and her team are pioneers in the field, having already performed more than 600 cord blood transplants with unrelated donors more than anyone else in the world. Cord blood transplantation has already been used to treat a number of diseases including leukemia, lymphoma, and sickle cell anemia. The legislation we introduced yesterday will establish an inventory of 150,000 new cord blood stem cell units that reflects the diversity of the people of the United States. The goal of this legislation is to create a network so that 95 percent of Americans who need a transplant will be able to receive an appropriately matched transplant. Calling transplants the ``ultimate in recycling,'' Dr. Kurtzberg believes, as I do, that cord blood has the potential to save the lives of countless patients nationwide. The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act establishes a network of qualified cord blood banks to collect, test, and preserve cord blood stem cells. Additionally, this legislation will help match donors and recipients. I am hopeful that this legislation will provide facilities like the Carolinas Cord Blood Bank at Duke with the ability to save thousands of lives as the number of bone marrow donors and cord blood units increases. The Senate needs to move forward on this legislation so that the Federal Government can help provide the infrastructure allowing these therapies to be extensively used. I stand ready to work with my colleagues so that we can enact this legislation quickly.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. They have been consulted. They are the agency that determines whether a license is granted. It was suggested that this is some willy-nilly program, that anybody who wants to send highly enriched uranium out to a reactor somewhere just simply does that, and hopefully we get back radiopharmaceuticals. That is not the case. This is a very stringent licensing program, where they apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They are instructed by the Atomic Energy Act as to the process they go through, currently in the law, that was written by Senator Schumer in 1992. Over the years, the interpretation of that provision has changed. Over the years, that has caused indecision at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It was that indecision, that vagueness in the current law that Senator Schumer is attempting to strike and go back to provision in law that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said: We don't feel that we can successfully make this evaluation without you clarifying the parameters you want us to be in. So in short, we asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to write us on the language and asked them if it cleared it up, asked them if, in fact, this gave them the proper direction from the Senate, from the Congress. This is the letter back from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that says: The NRC continues to have no objections to the provisions pertaining to the export of HEU targets for the production of medical isotopes by specified countries. I know there are others anxious to speak. I have so much more to say. I see the chairman of the bill has stood and may have a unanimous consent request. I am not sure. But I would like to see if my colleague from Arkansas is prepared to speak in opposition to the Schumer amendment.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Schumer amendment. Let me compliment Senator Kyl for his willingness, over the last 24 hours, to try to bring assurances, through some consensus legislation, of where we both agree we need to get to, that we had language that would do it. We do have a slight disagreement because I believe the language that is in the bill does meet the move towards low-enriched uranium. I believe that the health of the American public should be at the forefront of our consideration. Because if, in fact, we adopt a policy that eliminates the availability of radiopharmaceuticals, then we have greatly affected the diagnostic capabilities that exist, that technology has created over the last decade and, in many cases, the treatments for cancer. An interruption that happened from even the Canadian source before meant that doctors were rationed on what they could receive in radiopharmaceuticals. We know how fragile this is because we are reliant on reactors outside this country for those radiopharmaceuticals. Senator Kyl and, hopefully, Senator Schumer agree that when this is all decided--and I hope it is decided with the language that the entire Energy Committee worked on and what is in the House language and has been there--when it is all said and done, I hope we find a way to either get the Department of Energy or somebody to begin to produce low-enriched uranium in this country. It is an awful policy that we still turn outside the country for those reactors to produce the medical isotopes, but there is a rich history of that. The Department of Energy has looked at this since 1992. They looked at Los Alamos and using the reactors there to begin to make low-enriched uranium. Then they looked at Sandia. Then they talked about privatizing Sandia. The net result was, in the year 2000, the Department of Energy came to the conclusion that they were going to disband this effort, that they couldn't figure out how to do it. The fact is, there is not a lot of profit generated from it. But this is clearly a treatment that will grow as researchers find new tools for it. I know there is an attempt to try to address a time limit here, but I am not sure that we can put a time limit on all the patients in America that are relying on the decision we are going to make tonight. We would spend a lot more time on individual health bills. Nuclear medicine procedures using medical isotopes are heart disease, cancer, including breast, lung, prostate, thyroid and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and brain, Grave's disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, epilepsy, renal failure, bone infections. Our ability to take radioisotopes and send them to an organ, where now we can see that organ without an incision, without opening a person up, a noninvasive way to determine exactly what is happening in the human body and, on the oncology side, a way to treat cancers, when we can take the chemotherapy product and send it right to where we want those cells to be killed. I would like to submit, for the record, a letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because they have commented on this language. I ask unanimous consent to print it in the Record.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have all the respect in the world for my colleague, Senator Kyl. I think it is reasonable in life that two people can disagree on what something says. In this particular case, an entire committee looked at it, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When the question is asked, Who asked for change? the answer is simple: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is with over 10 years of working with the current language. And as time has gone on and technology has changed, and as the requirement for the size of what we needed in radioisotopes has changed, it was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that, in fact, suggested they needed Congress's help. Let me address the last fact Senator Kyl brought up. One, only Argentina currently produces medical isotopes using LEU target technology, which is unable to even meet the current needs in Argentina medical community. Indonesia has ceased any further testing of the U.S.-developed LEU through the technical obstacles. We all want low- enriched uranium. After this is over, I hope this body will take on that challenge, the challenge of domestically producing medical isotopes and the Department of Energy will probably have a hold of the tiger that we give them when we instruct the Department to go back to what they dropped in 2000, after they have reviewed it, and look at our reactors here and how we accomplish production, whether we can make money at it or not. I want to go back to health, though. Some have suggested that health is not important. Health is important. I list it up here on the chart. Annually, over 14 million nuclear medicine procedures are performed in the United States that require medical isotopes manufactured from highly enriched uranium. Patients and doctors in the United States are 100 percent reliant on the import of medical isotopes that are used with highly enriched uranium. That is a fact. Every day, over 20,000 patients undergo procedures that use radiopharmaceuticals developed to diagnose coronary artery disease and assist in assessing patient risk for major cardiac-related deaths, such as strokes. This is not just what we treat; this is what we prevent from happening through this diagnostic tool. The CDC estimates that 61 million Americans--almost one-fourth of the U.S. population--lives with the effects of stroke or heart disease, and heart disease is the leading cause of disability among working adults. Medical isotopes are one of the tools used to diagnose and treat many forms of cancer, as we have listed. Medical isotopes are also used to help manage pain in cancer patients, such as decreasing the need for pain medication when cancer spreads or metastasizes to the bone. Thyroid cancer. Radiopharmaceuticals are used to diagnose and treat thyroid disorders and cancer which, according to the American Cancer Society, is one of the few cancers where the incident rate is increasing. Mr. President, we are talking about dealing with real health problems that are on the rise, and technology can come up with new treatments. But that treatment is held in limbo until we decide. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma is the fifth most common cancer in the United States. According to the American Cancer Society, approximately 56,000 new cases of non-Hodgkins lymphoma will be diagnosed in the year 2005. The voice of proliferation, Alan Kuperman, of the Nuclear Control Institute, said this about the language that is currently in the Energy bill: This provision is not controversial and, thus, likely to remain in the energy bill when and if it is enacted. He went on to say: Ironically, an amendment originally drafted to pave the way for continued HEU exports [which is his interpretation, not that of the committee] for isotope production may have the unintended consequences of terminating them. That is exactly the opposite of what those who suggest the need for this amendment is. Even the person who is the most outspoken in this country says: You know what. What the Energy Committee has done will force us into the use of low-enriched uranium. In fact, this tells me from the person who is the most outspoken that our committee has done exactly what we attempted to do. We have written exactly the right language. Without a secure and permanent supply of medical isotopes, it is unlikely that new nuclear medicine procedures will be researched or developed. If, in fact, we suggest we will cut off this source, why would any researcher around this country look at how to further what they can do with medical isotopes? My colleague from Arkansas stated it very well. This is not just Members of the Senate who are suggesting we have read the language and it is right; it is the American College of Nuclear Physicians, the American College of Radiology, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology--and the list goes on. Every Member can see it. Can this many health care professionals be wrong? Separate this, as Senator Kyl suggested. This is a proliferation issue, and it is a health issue. As to the health issue, I do not think anybody questions the value of this product for the health of the American people. There is no better gold standard on deciding whether an application or license should be approved than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still in charge of this process. That has not changed. It will not change. If it is a national security risk, it will not just be the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that screams, it will be the Government--the House and Senate, the White House--that screams.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator and would only make this point. Some have made the accusation that this legislation weakens existing law. Let me point out to my colleagues item 7 in the language, termination of review: After the Secretary submits a certification under paragraph (6), the Commission shall, by rule, terminate its review of export license applications under this subsection. This does fulfill the national security. It is reassured by the Nuclear Control Institute and the person who is most outspoken, Alan Kuperman. Ironically, he says this amendment, originally drafted to pave the way to continued HEU exports, would actually do away with them. We would go to LEU faster, is his conclusion. We urge our colleagues to oppose the Schumer amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I want to maintain the 7 minutes for Senator Bond. I thank Senator Kyl for the gracious way we tried to negotiate. I think it is unfortunate that we have not. I urge Senators to defeat this amendment. Protect the patients.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I am glad I stayed on the floor because I was a little dismayed when I heard Senator Cantwell describe her amendment. Senator Durbin helped to clear it up for me in the fact that if we cut trucks off at the truckstop and if all the American people take the tires that are on their car now and we change those to new tires, we can eliminate a million barrels of oil. It is incredibly easy. It is unrealistic, but if you hear it portrayed, it is portrayed as something that is easy to accomplish. I rise in opposition to the Senator's amendment because I believe one of the responsibilities we have as Members of the Senate is to, in fact, pass legislation that is reasonable for the American people, legislation that is technologically possible to achieve--even if we stretch technology and we push technology, and even if we were to create a ``Manhattan Energy project.'' The reality is that some of the same individuals who stand in this chamber and claim this is easily achievable are the same ones who for the last decade have blocked domestic exploration, which is crucial to less reliance on foreign oil. I believe every American agrees with me that we want to become less reliant on imported oil, but it is not just for national security, it is for job security. When we talk about policies on this floor that affect the cost of manufacturers in a global marketplace, we are talking about the jobs our constituents have, about the manufacturers who used to compete domestically within North Carolina or within the Southeast, or within this country, and now compete with people they will never meet. Of this year's group of graduates from college, 20 percent of them will compete for a job with somebody they will never meet and who will never live in this country because technology allows us to do it. It will be incredible when technology gets to that point, that it won't take government pushing it and saying implement it; it will implement itself because it brings efficiencies and savings to the marketplace naturally. I think, as the occupant of the chair does, as we have gone through the creation of this energy bill, we have pushed technology and we have brought those minds into the committee in a bipartisan way and said: ``Tell us where this can go over the next decade.'' We have truly tried in this legislation to create a blueprint for the American people and for the American economy, one that makes predictable what energy costs will be and how it will affect our competitiveness in this country and internationally. At the end of the day, if we do anything that forces American business to be at a competitive disadvantage, we have done a disservice to the American worker, who is the recipient of that business. We need to vote against the Cantwell amendment. We need to tell the American people we have an energy policy. And if we believe that policy will lead us down the road to new technologies this year, next year, 10 years from now, it may be that 20 years from now we are all driving hybrid cars. I happen to believe that technology will make the hybrid car, 20 years from now, probably obsolete; there will be a new technology out there. But I am confident of one thing: You cannot push the mileage standards of automobiles further than where technology will allow; that for every place you surge and you try to reach a little too far, you cause, in fact, an unintended consequence on the other side. We will also have an opportunity to vote on Senator Bingaman's amendment on a renewable portfolio standard, one I know the Senator from New Mexico is passionate about. I want to correct something that Senator Cantwell said. She said--and she is from Washington--that hydroelectric power makes up a majority of their electricity generation today, and she is right. The unfortunate thing is, hydroelectric power is not considered a renewable source of electricity unless it is new hydro. It is incredible, the history we have in this country of hydroelectric generation, but we do not consider that to be a ``renewable source of electricity.'' The only way hydro would qualify under a renewable portfolio standard is if it is new hydroelectric generation. For those of us in the Southeast of the United States who for years have used electricity generated by hydro plants to compliment our coal- fired generation facilities or our nuclear facilities or our gas-fired facilities, we have understood for some time what made up a portfolio, and we assumed part of it was made up of what we considered to be renewable-hydroelectric power. At 50 years old and now in my 11th year in Congress, I am reminded that hydroelectric power is not renewable, that water is not a renewable substance. It is crazy it is not included. If we did include hydroelectric generation, North Carolina would in all likelihood hit the 10 percent mandate required in this amendment. I believe the Presiding Officer would hit the 10 percent possibly in Tennessee today. But the reality is we are being asked to accept a renewable portfolio standard that does not even include the generation of electricity with hydro. It does not require that rural electric cooperatives that generate electricity participate in the renewable portfolio standard. Electric co-ops account for a sizeable amount of the electricity generated in this country on an annual basis, but they are not included. We just want to place it on the backs of the ratepayers of investor-owned utilities. I happen to come from a State that is rich with investor-owned utilities, but it is rich in electric co-ops and municipal power, probably richer than any State in the country. I defend them, but I do not believe if we put a burden like this on the ratepayers of the investor-owned utilities that we should leave anybody out and say they should be unaffected. The fact is, what they have tried to do is put the cost of the renewable portfolio standard on the backs of one slice of electric generation, and that is the ratepayers of investor-owned utilities. They know if it extended to electric co-ops, there would be no way for this amendment to pass. There would be opposition on both sides of the aisle, on every level of our desks to this amendment. The fact is, today we are here because we need to defeat the Bingaman amendment for a renewable portfolio standard, but we also need to defeat the Cantwell amendment. She said it is not a mandate but a goal, a goal that we cannot achieve today based upon available technology and one we ought not put into this bill, in fact, because it is unachievable. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Gretchen C.F. Shappert to be U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. Ms. Shappert has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District since 1990 and has served as Acting U.S. Attorney since 2004. Ms. Shappert brings a wealth of experience to the position, and I am confident that she will continue to serve the President, the State of North Carolina, and the country with honor and distinction. From 1983 to 1990, Ms. Shappert served as Assistant District Attorney and as Assistant Public Defender for Mecklenburg County, NC. Before her career in public service, Ms. Shappert was an associate with the law firm of Tucker, Hicks, Sentelle, Moon & Hodge in Charlotte, NC. Ms. Shappert earned her bachelor's degree from Duke University and her J.D. from Washington and Lee University School of Law, where she earned the title of managing editor of the Washington and Lee Law Review. I have no doubt that Ms. Shappert will continue to represent North Carolina well in the judicial branch of our Nation.