Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I come to the floor under the privilege to speak about a situation that occurred in Idaho that brought great sadness to me and to some of my staff. In 1974, when I was elected to the State legislature, prior to that legislative session convening, I traveled to the north end of my State for the North Idaho Chamber Tour which goes on every 2 years for Idaho legislators. It was at that time I met the chairman of the North Idaho Chamber, a fellow by the name of Pete Wilson, who was a leader in his community of Bonners Ferry, who was well known across north Idaho as an attorney who gave so much of his time to his community and to the citizens of that area. Little did I know years later when I ran for Congress, Pete Wilson would become one of my strong supporters. Pete became a friend down through the years. Just a few years after I got here, a young woman came to my office to seek employment, a young lady by the name of Brooke Roberts, who happened to be Pete Wilson's niece. Brooke Roberts is now my head of legislative affairs and my chief counsel and assistant manager of my office. Not only has Brooke played a tremendous role in my political life, but her uncle, Pete Wilson, has played a tremendous role. I say now, sadly, in the Senate, has played. Last Friday night or early Saturday morning, Pete Wilson and his son Kip were killed by asphyxiation believed to be carbon monoxide poisoning. His wife Rhoda and another son who was there visiting because of Pete's illness at age 78 are still recuperating from a near-death experience of carbon monoxide poisoning. My sympathies go out to Rhoda and to Duff, to Tim and to Neal, the remaining sons of this wonderful family. Idaho has lost an icon. Idaho has lost one of those kinds of citizens who gives and gives and gives more, not for himself but for the community he was a leader in, for the State he loved so well, for Boundary County, where he sought his professional life, where he raised his family, and where he made a mark on Idaho. Pete Wilson will be long remembered as a citizen of our State who gave. He has always been in my political life, not just as someone who supported me but someone who advised me. Uncle Pete would pick up the phone and call and say: Larry, you're wrong about this issue. You ought to do it this way or you ought to do it that way. And usually he was right. I took his advice because he was so well grounded in the community he served. He served as president of the chamber, served as a lawyer who in many ways gave time and time again to the charities and to the communities of that marvelous community of Bonners Ferry and Boundary County. Pete Wilson will be missed. Pete Wilson will be long remembered. It was a tragic accident that took him and his son, nearly took another son, and his wife. To their family, I must say, on behalf of Suzanne and myself, we are so saddened by this situation, but we want Idaho to know Pete Wilson will be remembered as someone who made our country work, someone who never wanted to aspire beyond being just that strong community leader who associated himself communitywide and statewide to make for his family and for his friends a better place to live. Pete Wilson of Bonners Ferry, ID, of Boundary County, ID, made north Idaho a better place because he was there as a marvelous leader of that community. Pete will be long remembered. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, several Senators were prepared to offer an amendment today to provide for support for the Congressional Award Program, through a collaboration with the Corporation for National and Community Service. I understand from the Subcommittee the difficulties that this would present and will not press forward with such an amendment at this time. I did want to engage the Chairman of the VA- HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee in a colloquy about this valuable program. Congress established the highly successful Congressional Award in 1979 to recognize initiative, achievement, and service in young people. The Congressional Award is the U.S. Congress' award for young Americans. It is nonpartisan, voluntary, and noncompetitive. The award enjoys broad bipartisan support. This excellent program has grown by more than 3,000 participants during fiscal year 2003, and currently, there are some 14,750 active participants from across the nation. In the past, the Congressional Award Program has been able to sustain itself. Because of the tremendous growth of this program, its resources have been stretched to the breaking point. After the events of 9/11 and the recent recession, patterns of charitable giving have changed and this program, like many worthy causes, has had an extremely difficult time maintaining earlier levels of contributions, much less accommodating its rapid growth. The congressional award needs a modest amount in a funding base to regain its footing and momentum and continue its growth for the future. Congressional support is needed to leverage renewed and increased private donations. Supporters of this program had looked to this bill because the Congressional Award Program already is being cited by the Corporation for National and Community service as the kind of program it supports and encourages and already is listed as an official partner of America's Promise, another related program. Congress already has explicitly provided in the Congressional Award Act that, while this program may not receive a direct appropriation, it may receive financial support through collaborations with other programs receiving appropriated funds. I note that the Appropriations Committee, in the report accompanying this bill, has expressed its concern with current costs per participant in volunteer service programs. In particular, the report mentioned the $16,000 cost per AmeriCorps members for program and education award costs and called upon the Corporation to reduce costs. In contrast, the Congressional Award Program costs only about $68 per participant. It is more than just a great program, it is a bargain. The Congressional Award is one of only two standing awards given by Congress. The other is the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is time that Congress became a partner of the congressional award in more than just name.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator from North Dakota will yield, Mr. President, what the Senator speaks to is a very real problem, especially in border States such as his and mine, where farmers across that line that is often invisible--economically, environmentally, and climactically, but not jurisdictionally, certainly not from a national standpoint--can't understand why a product that appears to be the same--and as the Senator from North Dakota said, there may be some slight difference because it is not licensed in this country--cannot cross the border and find a substantial savings and bring it back for application on his agricultural crops in the lower 48. Yet product raised in Canada, harvested in Canada, can be trafficked into our markets, refined, and moved into our food stream. There does clearly need to be a resolution of this problem, from an economic standpoint, from an environmental standpoint, and from a food safety standpoint. That was spoken to in the Canadian free trade agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is something we ought to resolve. I am pleased that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is willing to hold hearings early next year to review it. I will certainly encourage that. I will encourage that we move the next step, to a markup, to resolve this issue once and for all. There are remnants left of difficulties between the United States and Canada in a variety of areas as a result of the free trade agreement. I didn't support that agreement initially, but it is the law of the lands involved: Canada, the United States, and Mexico. We ought to try to resolve these kinds of difficulties that create great problems. Twenty million dollars spread across the national economy is not so much money; $20 million in a State such as North Dakota or Idaho, on individual farmers who are, at best, breaking even in some of these crops and in many years below cost of production--that savings in itself is a very substantial reduction in the overall cost of doing business. That is what harmonization was about: Environmentally, regulatorily, and certainly as a cost of product, and for food safety and all of those things within the food chain. This is an issue that cries out for resolution. I am pleased that the Senator is willing to withdraw his second degree and that that probably then allows us, hopefully, to go forward with the other one, maybe by a voice vote or an acceptance of the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. I thank the Senator for bringing this issue to the floor. I am certainly an advocate of his position and will work to help him resolve it.

Mr. CRAIG. That is the order. I understand we will then recess from 12:30 until 2:15 for the purpose of the Democrat policy luncheon.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have brought an amendment to the floor today that has been worked on for a long period of time in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans, VA-HUD subcommittee, Senate Agriculture Committee, and others, to deal with pesticide registration and the fees of that registration. For the last several years, the VA-HUD appropriations bill has, on an analyzed basis, advanced these fees automatically. We have done it through the appropriating process. The administration basically said let's resolve this issue. A broad coalition of environmental organizations and chemical companies basically came together in the past several months to reach consensus on a permanent pesticide fees package. Through several long hours, an agreement was reached late this summer through a truly bipartisan effort that produced identical legislation in both the Senate amendment I have just sent forward with the 20-plus cosponsors and House H.R. 3188. So the House and Senate are now working in tandem on this issue. The package includes a unique cross section of support from industry, labor, farmers, and the environmental community. Such groups as the Natural Resource Defense Council, the American Farm Bureau, the Sierra Club, the CropLife America group, and the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides now fully endorse this bill. Cumulatively, there are over 20 agricultural organizations supporting this amendment, and they have asked for ``stable, effective and predictable pesticide regulation'' that is explicitly created in this legislation. The amendment guarantees long-term stable funding to EPA that provides and expedites the pesticide registration process by using a performance-based approach. Additionally, the amendment provides a protection for small business and minor use products while funding efforts to protect workers. The legislation ensures that EPA use sound science in its evaluation of products, and that existing rigorous standards are maintained, while reducing the timelag between approval and availability of these products to farmers and retailers who sell them. The amendment is consistent with other user fees legislation, such as the successful Prescription Drug User Fee Act. Congress has addressed the pesticide fees issue for several years, as I have mentioned, by simply rolling it over in appropriations bills. But it is truly an issue that deserves the full consideration of all parties involved and finality brought to it. And this amendment offers that. I had offered it in the subcommittee, but because of our consideration of not dealing with legislation in the subcommittee, we chose, and I chose, to bring it to the floor on behalf of a very broad bipartisan group of Senators. As in the past, the House and the Senate VA-HUD bills, as I said, spoke to a temporary approach, a 1-year fix for the issue. Now, of course, I hope we can gain acceptance of this amendment on all sides so that we have a long-term solution so Congress can fully resolve the issue. My amendment, our amendment, has the same budget impact as the 1-year rider currently in both the House and the Senate 2004 appropriations bills. Now is the time, I do believe, to provide a long-term fix to the pesticide fee program at the EPA by including this consensus legislation on an appropriations bill moving forward. The diverse stakeholder coalition--from the agricultural industry, environmental groups, workers, and the consumer community--has worked long and hard to forge a consensus and is fully supportive of the terms of this amendment. So I hope when we get consideration of this--it is possible there may be others who wish to speak to it--that we can bring it on this legislation and adopt it, hopefully, by consensus of the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Pryor as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I know Senator Dorgan, who supports the initial legislation, has some concern about other issues and is on his way to the floor to speak to those. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. On the legislation that became law a couple years ago, with your backing and my backing, that is that agricultural goods and medical supplies could be traded and sold to Cuba without United States taxpayer credit, maybe we need to add the words and ``related medical services.'' That is really picking the flyspecks out of the pepper here down at the Department of the Treasury. Shame on them for standing in the way of a humanitarian effort to make kids healthier. But behind you is the picture of Miss Scott. She also visited my office yesterday. I must say to this administration: Do not fight us on this issue. We are giving you the right way out. The House and the Senate, in a strong bipartisan voice--the loudest and the strongest vote we have ever had here on the floor of the Senate--said: Let's begin to back away from this travel embargo with Cuba. It does not work any longer. It is a 40-year-old failed policy. Now you are being arbitrary. Now you are being selective. We ought to get away from that. So I hope this afternoon in conference the House and the Senate's bipartisan voice is heard. Frankly, the administration ought to view it as a gift. We are not abolishing the law that puts in that embargo. We are simply disallowing the expenditure of levying a $10,000 fine against a woman passing out Bibles because she trafficked through Canada and did not fill out the right form. That is what we are doing. Let OFAC track down drug traffickers and terrorists and leave Ms. Scott alone. That is what we ought to be about. Somehow this has gotten very confused and very skewed. I thank the Senator for bringing up this point. Please prevail in conference this afternoon.

Mr. CRAIG. On behalf of Senator Bond and Senators McConnell, Talent, Chambliss, Miller, and Craig, I send the Bond amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. I will speak only briefly. I didn't think I had a dog in this fight, only a lawnmower and a weed eater. Most of what the Senator from California said I agree with. But I also know when you have a large manufacturer that builds literally tens of thousands of engines a year spread out across the country and are allied to a variety of tools that are built by other companies, there does need to be uniformity in law. The amendment requires EPA to establish that kind of uniformity for 50 horse and under. Of course, I can appreciate that. I have dealt with situations before, including when we had the lawsuit over Yellowstone Park. It said that snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park had to meet a certain standard. We said, wait a minute, let's build a standard so all snowmobiles meet, nationwide, both the issue of sound and air pollution. That is exactly what is happening now. Most industries, when you can build a nationwide uniformity of standard, work obviously to meet it or they go out. Briggs & Stratton is the last remaining large manufacturer of small engines in the country. I understand that California has made some exceptions, carving out for Honda and others to meet certain compliance issues. I hope in this amendment we do recognize when you have a producer of this magnitude that sells worldwide and nationwide that we build or work to build uniformity across those standards. I believe that is the intent of the amendment. The Senator is right, it has been reduced to 50 horsepower and does address EPA, requiring them to address this problem.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Regaining my time in trying to respond to that because I am not the expert in this area and I have not dealt with this issue per se, obviously, I recognize the need of California. Other States have that need. What this amendment does is it addresses EPA to move rapidly into that area to build a uniform national standard that meets those needs. Of course, EPA does have a broader test when it develops regulation. It does have an economic factor test involved in looking at regulations that some States are not required or simply do not have because they set their own standards. It is a fine line between allowing States to move forward and developing uniform national standards. There have been exceptions. The Senator has spoken to those exceptions. When a market has a magnitude of sales large enough, sometimes those exceptions are effectively made and economically companies can survive. In this instance, what we have seen in this particular market, because of costs of retooling, retrofitting, and bringing assembly lines online, oftentimes it is easier to move offshore--not that you will change the requirement--but you can, therefore, build the new plant for less cost, you drive down your costs because of labor, and that is what the Senator from Missouri is concerned about. He is also concerned about pollution. That is why the amendment addresses EPA and says get at the business of dealing with this 50 horsepower and up issue. That is a major problem.

Mr. CRAIG. I am more than happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, regaining my time, I obviously cannot address that issue. I am here for the purpose of introducing the amendment on behalf of Senator Bond. Senator Bond is in markup on surface transportation and will be back to the floor in a while to engage the Senator in these questions, I am sure, and he knows a great deal more about this issue than I. What I would like to do at this moment, if the Senator from California would accept it, is to lay the amendment aside temporarily for the purpose of the introduction of another amendment, and when Senator Bond gets back to the floor he can bring this amendment back for the purposes of addressing it with the Senator. Would the Senator object to that?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from California. I ask unanimous consent that the Bond amendment be set aside.

Mr. CRAIG. With that, I send to the desk an amendment for the Senate's consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding, under the agreement, that Senator Byrd will be on the floor at noon to speak for a period of time. Following that, I understand we will resume consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request so that just prior to proceeding as requested, the three cloture votes would be vitiated and the Senate would then immediately proceed to three consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nominations with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRAIG. I object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have spent a fair amount of time on the floor tonight listening. I am a freshman on the Judiciary Committee. There are a great many things Senators can do. They can speak flamboyantly, they can speak articulately, they make history, but they cannot rewrite history. I heard a few phrases tonight that were trying to rewrite a little of the history. So I thought for a few moments I would read from a letter from the Senator who was there for the Abe Fortas debate, not a filibuster but a debate, a cloture vote. We are trying to say tonight that cloture votes are somehow filibusters. Well, my goodness, what an interesting term of art. Most importantly, what an interesting play of words. Filibusters are nonstop speaking. Cloture votes are simply to gain the majority necessary, a supermajority, to continue the work of the Senate. Now, those are the rules of the Senate. Let me read a letter that came to us from Robert Griffin, Republican Senator from Michigan. He writes to the Honorable John Cornyn, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution: Dear Mr. Chairman: An Associated Press piece which appeared yesterday in many of the Sunday newspapers (copy attached) speculated that Chief Justice Rehnquist and/or Justice O'Connor might retire this year or next, and concluded with this comment: Presidents have not had much success in appointing Supreme Court justices in election years. . . . The last person to try it was Lyndon Johnson in 1968, when he failed to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to replace Chief Justice Earl Warren. Republicans filibustered the nomination and Johnson backed off. That is what the article in the paper said. Here are the facts from a Senator who was on the floor at the time debating the Abe Fortas nomination. He goes on: Whether intended or not, the inference read by many would be: Since the Republicans filibustered to block Justice Fortas from becoming Chief Justice, it must be all right for Democrats to filibuster to keep President Bush's nominees off the appellate courts. Having been on the scene in 1968, and having participated in the debate, I see a number of very important differences between what happened then and the situation that confronts the Senate today. First of all, four days of debate on a nomination for Chief Justice is hardly a filibuster. He goes on to speak of the remarks that he gave in closing out that debate. When is a filibuster, Mr. President? . . . There have been no dilatory quorum calls or other dilatory tactics employed. The speakers who have taken the floor have addressed themselves to the subject before the Senate, and a most interesting and useful discussion has been recorded in the Congressional Record. Those who are considering invocation of cloture at this early stage on such a controversial, complex matter should keep in mind that Senate debate last year on the investment tax credit bill lasted 5 weeks-- In other words, Senate leadership is now considering imposing a cloture vote on the debate that has gone on for 4 days. Nothing was said about a filibuster. So we go on, and he speaks about that. Then he says: While a few Senators, individually, might have contemplated the use of the filibuster, there was no Republican Party position that it should be employed. Indeed, Republican leader of the Senate, Everett Dirksen, publicly expressed his support for the Fortas nomination shortly after the President announced his choice. Opposition in 1968 to the Fortas nomination was not partisan. Some Republicans supported Fortas; and some Democrats opposed him. Then he goes on to speak about the cloture vote. There were 45 in favor of the motion and 43 against. What happened the next day, when the President, a Democrat President, could see he simply did not have bipartisan support on the floor for a majority, 50 plus 1? He pulled the Abe Fortas nomination. There was no filibuster. There was simply a cloture vote. Now, it is a term of art that is trying to be finely defined tonight and finely written. When is a filibuster a filibuster? When is a cloture a cloture? Well, my colleagues cannot use the Abe Fortas example as a filibuster because simply this Senator will never allow other Senators to rewrite history. History is what it is at the time it is recorded and the Congressional Record clearly demonstrates----

Mr. CRAIG. I will not yield at this time. It is simply a fact recorded in the Congressional Record, so spoken by Robert P. Griffin, then the Senator from Michigan, who was there debating the cloture.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time now is allotted to the majority side?