Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Department of Interior Volunteer Recruitment Act of 2005. This bill would allow the Department of the Interior to recruit and use volunteers in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Offices of the Secretary. It also addresses some problems with existing volunteer authorities at the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey. The Department of the Interior is a leader in the Federal Government in providing opportunities for volunteer service, and this bill significantly enhances our ability to provide volunteer opportunities to interested Americans. The bill provides for appropriate ethics and tort claims coverage for DOI volunteers and ensures against the displacement of employees by volunteers. Last, the bill contains provisions which explicitly protect private property rights. By making it easier for people to volunteer in more Department of the Interior bureaus, this legislation contributes a crucial piece to the President's call to all Americans to volunteer in their communities and to the Secretary's Take Pride in America program, which is working in concert with that call. There is wide support for the bill and there is no known opposition. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this excellent bill through the legislative process quickly.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Alabama. Over the last several years, I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Sessions on the Judiciary Committee. I have gained such phenomenal respect for his keen intellect and bright legal mind. When one listens to him, as those who might be watching today have, they get the truth, direct, clear, understandable, and unvarnished. That is what it is all about. The obfuscation of the truth sometimes finds its way to the Senate floor, and my guess is that it is finding its way to the Senate floor in the debate on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. I rise in support of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be our next Attorney General. It seems to me that some of our colleagues are interested in not the true man and his qualifications but more in what they perceive to be the politics and the policies of this administration. In the last Congress, I had the privilege of serving as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and I witnessed this tactic used against judicial nominees time and time again, a tactic of equating a lawyer's performance as legal counsel with his likely performance to the very different role of being a judge. We saw that argued time and time again for a political purpose, not a reasonable analysis of the character of the individual and how he or she might perform in the new role in which they were being asked to participate. Likewise, in this debate some have argued we should evaluate Judge Gonzales's fitness for the post of Attorney General, the Nation's top cop, based on a politically driven examination of his work product as the President's Counsel. I urge my colleagues to abandon that tactic, reject that argument, and look at the lifetime achievement of the nominee if my colleagues truly want to understand who Judge Gonzales is and what he is qualified to do in the role he is now being asked to play by our President. I feel strongly that the Senate should vote to confirm this man. I had the privilege of getting to know Judge Gonzales and work with him firsthand while I served on the Judiciary Committee and in a variety of other settings. First, Judge Gonzales's past experiences have prepared him for the position to serve honorably in that position, in my opinion, without question. As Counsel to the President, he has been instrumental in coordinating our Nation's law enforcement in the heightened security environment. Following 9/11, as Senator Sessions has just referred to, while serving as Counsel to the President, Judge Gonzales paid particular attention to protecting our Nation from terrorism, while not forgetting the importance of doing so under the Constitution, in order to safeguard our rights as free citizens. Also, President Bush has acknowledged the great help Judge Gonzales has been to him in helping to select the best nominees for our Federal courts during the past few years. Before serving as White House Counsel, Judge Gonzales was distinguished as a justice of the supreme court of the State of Texas, at which time he was known as a careful jurist who was opposed to judicial activism and who recognized the limited role that the judiciary plays in our unique system of government. Additionally, Judge Gonzales advised then-Governor Bush as his chief counsel in Texas. Judge Gonzales served there as both a secretary of state and chief elections officer of that great State. Furthermore, Judge Gonzales had a successful career in the private legal sector prior to entering public service. What combination do we need to get the very best top cop in the country? He has not only a keen legal mind but is one who has had administrative experience, one who has worked with large systems of government and one who knows the limit of the law and the limit and the capacity of the position in which he is now being asked to serve. Finally, Judge Gonzales has led a life filled with many other activities and honors that helped to prepare him to be an outstanding Attorney General, and I will name just a few of them. Judge Gonzales served his country as a member of the U.S. Air Force from 1973 to 1975. He was also elected to the American Law Institute in 1999 and he served on the board of trustees of the Texas Bar Foundation for several years and as the president of the Houston Hispanic Bar Association from 1990 to 1991. Later in 1999, Judge Gonzales was chosen as the Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association. As a number of my colleagues have pointed out, when Judge Gonzales is confirmed, he will be this great Nation's first Hispanic Attorney General. Through all of this, Judge Gonzales has found time to help the less fortunate of our country. He served on the board of directors of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast, and finally in 1997 he received the Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas for his work in addressing the legal needs of indigent citizens. Clearly, Alberto Gonzales is an accomplished practitioner of the law and he is unquestionably qualified to be our Nation's No. 1 law enforcement officer. The second reason I support Judge Gonzales, and the nomination that we are arguing in his behalf today, is the man himself and his views on issues facing our country and what our country needs and what his role is. He is very realistic, honest, and straightforward about it. In the last Congress when I served on the Judiciary Committee, I participated in debates on many of these issues that we see reignited by this nomination. Those experiences convinced me that Judge Gonzales has the necessary outlook to protecting our country from all of those who would do us and our citizens harm. I will talk a little bit about his views on some of these important issues regarding the war on terror. Judge Gonzales recognized that after the attacks of September 11, the United States was at war, a new and unique and different kind of war that we had never experienced before. As Senator Sessions said, a war of ideas but a war of violence, a war in which al-Qaida was the enemy but in a way that we had never experienced before. It was a unique and different legal paradigm in which Judge Gonzales found himself, dealing with terrorists and not recognizing them merely as criminals. That is why we had to change the character of some of our laws. We do not wait until after the fact and go out and collect the evidence and decide who may or may not have caused the violence or perpetrated a crime. It is too late then, and we all know it is too late. We act before, and we act decisively, as our President did. Judge Gonzales advised our President in that, and the constitutional consequences, and how we work our way through and the reasonable nature and character of protecting human rights and being fair and responsible, while all the time recognizing we were dealing with an enemy who in no way would deal that way or comprehend that they had any responsibility to deal with us as we might deal with them. Judge Gonzales has also worked to ensure that those detained in war as terrorists were treated humanely. While that allegation goes forth today, working to keep the principles of the Geneva Convention were clearly understood and all of that was well sought after. My time is about up. My colleagues on the other side have gathered to speak to this nomination. In closing, I support Judge Alberto Gonzales's nomination to be our next Attorney General because of his lifetime of hard work and his accomplishments. There is no question this man is qualified. That really is not the debate today. Others are trying to divert us off into a debate of policy or a debate of issues well beyond the character of the man and his ability to serve in the role that this President has cast him into as nominee for Attorney General of the United States. I believe he will be confirmed, and I believe he will serve honorably in that position. I strongly support this nomination. I ask my colleagues to step beyond the politics of the day, look at the reality of who we place in these key roles of Government to be effective administrators on behalf of all of the people, to be an Attorney General that is fair, who understands the role of the Constitution and the boundaries we placed on law enforcement and the legal community in the character of building and sustaining a civil society of the kind that we as Americans have come to know and appreciate, and that which we would hope the rest of the world can understand. Judge Gonzales understands it. Judge Gonzales will make a great Attorney General. I support him strongly. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and friends, Senator Wyden of Oregon and Senator Feinstein of California, to reauthorize a law that has stabilized payments to rural forest counties and, more important, has brought communities together to accomplish projects on the ground that improve watersheds and enhance habitat. It should be remembered that the National Forest System was formed in 1905 from the Forest Reserves, which were established between 1891 and 1905 by Presidential proclamation. During that time, 153 million acres of forestlands were set aside in Forest Reserves and removed from future settlement and economic development. This imposed great hardships on those counties that were in and adjacent to these new reserves. In many cases, 65 to 90 percent of the land in a county was sequestered in the new forest reserves, leaving little land for economic development and diminishing the potential tax base to support essential community infrastructure such as roads and schools. There was considerable opposition in the forest counties to establishing these reserves. In 1908, in response to the mounting opposition to the reserves in the West, Congress passed a bill which created a revenue sharing mechanism to offset for forest counties the effects of removing these lands from economic development. The 1908 act specified that 10 percent of all revenues generated from the multiple-use management of our National Forests would be shared with the counties to support public roads and public schools. Several years later that percentage was increased to 25 percent. People in our forest counties refer to this as the ``Compact with the People of Rural Counties'' which was part of the foundation for establishing our National Forest System. It was the intent of Congress in establishing our National Forests, that they would be managed in a sustained multiple-use manner in perpetuity, and that they would provide revenues for local counties and the Federal treasury in perpetuity as well. And, from 1908 until about 1993, this revenue sharing mechanism worked extremely well. However, from 1986 to the present, we have, for a variety of reasons, reduced our sustained active multiple-use management of the National Forests and the revenues have declined precipitously. Most counties have seen a decline of more than 85 percent in actual revenues generated on our National Forests and therefore an 85 percent reduction in 25 percent payments to counties which are used to help fund schools and county road departments. And more important, they have seen a 60-percent reduction in the economic activity that the federal timber sale programs generated in these counties. The Forest Service in its 1997 TSPIRS report estimates the total economic activity in these rural counties to be more than $2.1 billion, compared to more than $5.5 billion as recently as 1991. In 2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act to address the needs of the National Forest counties and to focus on creating a new cooperative partnership between citizens in forest counties and our Federal land management agencies to develop forest health improvement projects on public lands and simultaneously stimulate job development and community economic stability. This Act restored the 1908 compact between the people of rural America and the Federal Government, and it has been an enormous success in achieving and even surpassing the goals of Congress. This is a remarkable success story for rural forest communities. These funds have restored and sustained essential infrastructure such as county schools and county roads through title I. Essential forest improvement projects have been completed through title II projects funded by forest counties, and planned by diverse stakeholder resource advisory committees. In Idaho, resource advisory committees are partnering with the Forest Service and other organizations to fight the spread of weeds on the Nez Perce National Forest, make road improvements in Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and repair culverts and improve fish habitat on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. These groups are reducing management gridlock and building collaborative public lands decisionmaking capacity in counties across America. These resource advisory committees are a real and working compact between the Federal land management agencies and rural communities that includes all interest groups; they represent a true coupling of community with land managers that is good for the land and good for the communities. Finally, essential services are being supported and developed in forest counties by investing title III funds. In Idaho, counties are using the funding as directed for search and rescue operations and youth employment and educational opportunities. The impact of this act over the last few years is positive and substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to benefit the forest counties and their schools, and continue to contribute to improving the health of our National Forests. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and friends, Senator Wyden of Oregon and Senator Feinstein of California, to reauthorize a law that has stabilized payments to rural forest counties and, more important, has brought communities together to accomplish projects on the ground that improve watersheds and enhance habitat. It should be remembered that the National Forest System was formed in 1905 from the Forest Reserves, which were established between 1891 and 1905 by Presidential proclamation. During that time, 153 million acres of forestlands were set aside in Forest Reserves and removed from future settlement and economic development. This imposed great hardships on those counties that were in and adjacent to these new reserves. In many cases, 65 to 90 percent of the land in a county was sequestered in the new forest reserves, leaving little land for economic development and diminishing the potential tax base to support essential community infrastructure such as roads and schools. There was considerable opposition in the forest counties to establishing these reserves. In 1908, in response to the mounting opposition to the reserves in the West, Congress passed a bill which created a revenue sharing mechanism to offset for forest counties the effects of removing these lands from economic development. The 1908 act specified that 10 percent of all revenues generated from the multiple-use management of our National Forests would be shared with the counties to support public roads and public schools. Several years later that percentage was increased to 25 percent. People in our forest counties refer to this as the ``Compact with the People of Rural Counties'' which was part of the foundation for establishing our National Forest System. It was the intent of Congress in establishing our National Forests, that they would be managed in a sustained multiple-use manner in perpetuity, and that they would provide revenues for local counties and the Federal treasury in perpetuity as well. And, from 1908 until about 1993, this revenue sharing mechanism worked extremely well. However, from 1986 to the present, we have, for a variety of reasons, reduced our sustained active multiple-use management of the National Forests and the revenues have declined precipitously. Most counties have seen a decline of more than 85 percent in actual revenues generated on our National Forests and therefore an 85 percent reduction in 25 percent payments to counties which are used to help fund schools and county road departments. And more important, they have seen a 60-percent reduction in the economic activity that the federal timber sale programs generated in these counties. The Forest Service in its 1997 TSPIRS report estimates the total economic activity in these rural counties to be more than $2.1 billion, compared to more than $5.5 billion as recently as 1991. In 2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act to address the needs of the National Forest counties and to focus on creating a new cooperative partnership between citizens in forest counties and our Federal land management agencies to develop forest health improvement projects on public lands and simultaneously stimulate job development and community economic stability. This Act restored the 1908 compact between the people of rural America and the Federal Government, and it has been an enormous success in achieving and even surpassing the goals of Congress. This is a remarkable success story for rural forest communities. These funds have restored and sustained essential infrastructure such as county schools and county roads through title I. Essential forest improvement projects have been completed through title II projects funded by forest counties, and planned by diverse stakeholder resource advisory committees. In Idaho, resource advisory committees are partnering with the Forest Service and other organizations to fight the spread of weeds on the Nez Perce National Forest, make road improvements in Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and repair culverts and improve fish habitat on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. These groups are reducing management gridlock and building collaborative public lands decisionmaking capacity in counties across America. These resource advisory committees are a real and working compact between the Federal land management agencies and rural communities that includes all interest groups; they represent a true coupling of community with land managers that is good for the land and good for the communities. Finally, essential services are being supported and developed in forest counties by investing title III funds. In Idaho, counties are using the funding as directed for search and rescue operations and youth employment and educational opportunities. The impact of this act over the last few years is positive and substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to benefit the forest counties and their schools, and continue to contribute to improving the health of our National Forests. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 109th Congress. Pursuant to Rules XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Akaka, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have been joined by my colleague, Senator Akaka, the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to comment briefly on the President's nomination of Ambassador Jim Nicholson to serve as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Nicholson is a man of considerable character and accomplishment. I am pleased to speak in support of his nomination to serve in this critical post. I am pleased the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a committee of which I am the newly elected chairman, approved this nomination Monday at the committee's initial meeting of the 109th Congress. The President has asked Jim Nicholson to accept one of the more difficult jobs in Washington; that is, running the Department of Veterans Affairs. In the best of times this is a tough assignment. In times like the ones we are now entering, times within which the rate of the growth of the VA's budget will likely slow, but also within which the needs of the service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, must and will be met, is a tougher assignment, still. I am highly confident, however, that the President has found the right person for this job. Let me summarize Jim Nicholson's background. He was born in 1938 to modest circumstances on a farm in Iowa. He left that farm in 1957 to attend the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. After graduation in 1961, he served for 8 years in active service in the Army. He was a ranger and a paratrooper and served a tour in Vietnam from 1965 through 1966 where he earned, among other declarations, the Bronze Star, the Combat Infantryman's badge, the Air Medal, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. After returning from Vietnam in 1966, then-Captain Nicholson continued to serve on Active Duty for more than 4 years, followed by an additional 22 years as a Reserve officer. He retired from the Army Reserve in 1991 at the rank of colonel. While in Active and Reserve service, Mr. Nicholson obtained two advanced degrees, a BA in public policy from Columbia University and a JD from the University of Denver. After practicing law for a relatively brief period in Denver in the 1970s, he launched a very successful real estate development career. Among other positions, he served as chairman and president of Renaissance Homes of Colorado. His business career was also marked with extensive community and charitable activity. In 1986, Jim Nicholson became a committeeman for the Republican Party's national committee. In 1993, he was elected the Republican National Committee's vice chairman, and then he was elected for a 4- year term as chairman of the Republican National Committee. It was during these years at the helm of the RNC, I grew to know and admire Jim Nicholson. His accomplishments since that time have only increased my respect for the man. In August of 2001, President Bush appointed Mr. Nicholson U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, the Vatican. From that post he has advocated for religious reconciliation, for religious freedom in China and Russia, and against the international exploitation and enslavement of defenseless persons, commonly referred to as human trafficking. He has, as well, ably represented the interests of this Nation to this vital diplomatic post in a period of wartime. He has done so by all accounts with great diplomatic skill and steadfastness of the purpose that he was sent to serve. Veterans are fortunate a man so well-known and respected by the President of the United States will serve as Secretary. I am pleased the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, in its first official business meeting of the 109th Congress on Monday, unanimously approved this nomination. I ask my colleagues to ratify the judgment they were expressing. VA needs a steadfast hand in Jim Nicholson. I hope all of my colleagues will feel similar to those on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. This is not to suggest that VA has lacked a steady hand at the tiller. To the contrary. The stewardship as VA Secretary of former Naval Officer Anthony, or as we came to know him, Tony Principi, has been by any standard one of exceptional merit and distinction. It is a rare Secretary, indeed, who departs from this sensitive post with the words, I believe, that can be expressed about his service as ``job well done.'' Veteran service organizations, leaders from the hill, and other bodies all critically concerned about veterans affairs recognize that Tony Principi managed his job extremely well, and he has managed it while leading VA with impeccable integrity, absolute fairness and objectivity, and unflagging willingness to listen to all affected constituents and an extraordinary sensitivity to the needs and concerns of ordinary rank-and-file veterans. When the history of the VA is written, Tony Principi will be judged as one of the agencies titans. More importantly, he will also be judged by the ordinary former enlisted men and women whose needs he never lost sight of. On behalf of those persons, I salute the now retiring Secretary, Tony Principi. I say to my colleagues, I believe Jim Nicholson to be a titan in the making. He has all of the qualities that our President recognized, that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs recognized, as one who can adequately and most appropriately serve this very important agency of our Government and its millions of constituents. I ask the Senate to support the efforts of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in bringing this nomination to the Senate. I yield the floor and recognize my colleague and ranking member of the committee, Senator Dan Akaka.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me say forthrightly that we have the Ambassador's nomination on the floor today because of the cooperation of the ranking member, and I greatly appreciate that. Both he and I have reviewed what we believe is the mission of the committee. We are very excited about the work we will do in the coming years to help our veterans and work on their behalf through this important committee. I thank him for his cooperation. Madam President, I yield to our colleague from Colorado.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, to my knowledge there is no one else who has requested time to speak on behalf of this nominee. My colleague has yielded. I yield back the remainder of our time and ask for the vote.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 26, 2005, at 4 p.m., in closed session to receive testimony on current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct an executive session for the purpose of approving the committee budget and the committee rules.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a business meeting to consider the committee funding resolution and the committee rules. The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. CRAIG. 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, January 26 at 9:30 a.m., to consider pending calendar business. Agenda On Wednesday, January 26, at 9:30 a.m., the committee will hold a business meeting in Dirksen 366 to consider the following items on the agenda: Agenda Item 1: The Committee's Budget Resolution for a 2-year period, March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2007. Agenda Item 2: To consider the nomination of Samuel W. Bodman, to be Secretary of Energy. In addition, the committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 10 a.m., for a hearing titled ``The Department of Homeland Security: The Road Ahead.''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at a time and location to be determined to hold a business meeting to consider the committee's funding resolution for the 109th Congress.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 10:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider the committee budget resolution and proposed change to the committee rules and any other organizational business the committee needs to attend to.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226. Agenda I. Nominations: Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General of the United States. II. Legislation: S. 5, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for an organization and business meeting on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 26, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed meeting.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, Wednesday, January 26, 2005, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clear Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing regarding multiemissions legislation. The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the latest developments regarding the Canadian softwood lumber dispute. With yet another curious and ultimately inconsequential lumber unfair trade determination due today at the behest of a NAFTA dispute panel, it is important to place this matter in proper perspective. Would the distinguished Senator from Montana and my colleague from Idaho engage in a colloquy with me concerning the Canadian softwood lumber dispute?

Mr. CRAIG. The Commerce Department has found repeatedly that Canadian lumber is subsidized and dumped. World Trade Organization and NAFTA dispute settlement panels have definitively rejected Canada's long-time arguments that its underpricing of timber cannot be deemed a subsidy. The panels have also upheld findings that Canadian lumber is unfairly dumped in the U.S. market. The International Trade Commission has found repeatedly that the unfair imports threaten our industry with harm. President Bush was well prepared to answer the Canadian Prime Minister when they last met. The President told the Prime Minister that the problem of subsidies and dumping is caused by Canada, and the solution lies with Canada, unless Canada wants the solution to be permanent duties to offset the subsidies and the dumping. In over two decades, Canadian officials have not gotten the message, at least not in a way that takes, that this problem will not be resolved by Canada's investing hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees on more than 30 Washington law firms to circumvent U.S. laws in countless appeals to the WTO, to NAFTA panels and to the U.S. courts--several more were filed just this month. And it will not be solved by the cottage industry that has grown up in Canada to mount PR campaigns in the United States. The U.S. timber industry vigorously supports the administration's view that the unfair Canadian lumber problem could most appropriately and productively be resolved through negotiations--although perhaps there just ought to be permanent duties in place. But the U.S. timber industry is taking the statesmanlike high road, and I support it. Some vested interests in Canada do not see this, and prefer endless litigation, probably based on misguided advice that this will be productive from those who have made a living defending Canadian subsidies.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. When we were in deficit and when we were in surplus, I have always said, if we could adopt one fundamental reform to the way the Federal Government does business, this is it. The fiscal events of the last few years have again demonstrated the need for this long-term, fundamental, permanent reform. For many Americans, one of the signs of our deep respect for the Constitution is our acknowledgment that, in exceptional cases, a problem rises to such a level that it can be adequately addressed only in the Constitution--by way of a constitutional amendment. From 1998 through 2001, Congress balanced the Federal budget. These four budget surpluses in a row, for the first time since the 1920s, set the modern record for balancing the Federal budget. The first Republican Congresses in 40 years made balancing the budget our top priority, and did what was necessary, reaching across the aisle and working on a bipartisan basis. We ran surpluses and began the process we needed to pay down the national debt. This in turn promised, among other things, to help us safeguard the future of Social Security. Then events intervened. A return to budget deficits was caused by an economic recession and a war begun by terrorist attacks. Even before taking office in 2001, President Bush correctly foresaw the coming recession and prescribed the right medicine--the tax relief that has bolstered the economy and has saved and created jobs. The current economic recovery, in turn, has prevented even worse Federal budget deficits. The return to deficit spending can and should be a temporary phenomenon. We are rebounding from the recession of 2001 and the body blow to the economy caused by the war with terrorism. We must do whatever it takes to win that war. Providing for the self- defense and survival of our people and our Nation is the most fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government. That principle has been reflected in every significant version of the balanced budget constitutional amendment, in exceptions for war and imminent military threats. Historically, that principle was followed even when balancing the budget was the norm, because the U.S. Government always has borrowed when necessary to fight and win a war. Beyond that, we must keep all other Federal spending under control, so that we return, as soon as possible, to balancing the budget. In other words, the return to deficit spending will be a temporary problem only if we make a permanent commitment to the moral imperative of fiscal responsibility. We always did, and always will, need a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. Even in the heady days of budget surpluses, I always maintained the only way to guarantee that the Federal Government would stay fiscally responsible was to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Before we balanced the budget in 1998, the Government was deficit spending for 28 years in a row and for 59 out of 67 years. The basic law of political temptation--to just say ``yes''--was not repealed in 1998, but only restrained some, when we came together and briefly faced up to the great threat to the future posed by decades of debt. Now, the Government is back to borrowing. And for some, a return to deficit spending seems to have been liberating, as the demands for new spending only seem to be multiplying again. That is why, today, I am again introducing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and calling upon my colleagues to send it to the States for ratification. The amendment I introduce today is the same one I sponsored in the 108th Congress. This is essentially the same as the amendment that came within a single vote of the two-thirds necessary for passage, twice in two previous Senates. In addition, this amendment would not count the Social Security surplus in its calculation of a balanced budget. Those annual surpluses would be set aside exclusively to meet the future needs of Social Security beneficiaries. It's a new day, a new year, and a new Senate. We have the opportunity of a fresh start and, hopefully, the wisdom of experience. Today, with the first piece of legislation I am introducing in the 109th Congress, I call on the Senate to safeguard the future, by considering and passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution--a bill of economic rights for our future and our children. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this joint resolution, proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, be printed in the Record.