Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the Senator is absolutely right. I did vote against those judges, as I said on the floor a few moments ago. I voted for some of the Clinton judges and against some of them based on philosophy. The question I ask, though, is, Did I ever deny the Senate the right to go to a vote? Did I ever filibuster as the Senator's party is now doing on this issue?

Mr. CRAIG. I see.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Idaho Panhandle National Forest Improvement Act of 2003. This bill is an opportunity to provide lands for local benefits and to meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley of Idaho. This bill will offer for sale or exchange administrative parcels of land in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest that the Forest Service has identified as no longer in the interest of public ownership and that disposing of them will serve the public better. The proceeds from these sales will be used to improve or replace the Forest Service's Ranger Station in Idaho's Silver Valley. The Forest Service administrative parcels identified for disposal include the land permitted by the Granite/Reeder Sewer District on Priest Lake, Shoshone Camp in Shoshone County, and the North-South Ski Bowl, south of St. Maries. The bill also directs the Forest Service to improve or construct a new ranger station in the Silver Valley. The current ranger station is in dire need of repair or replacement, and this will ensure my commitment to a continued and increased presence of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley. This is a win-win situation for the taxpayers, the Forest Service, the residents of the Silver Valley, and the permittees on the parcels of land to be disposed of.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the, ``Sandpoint Land and Facilities Act of 2003''. This bill is a unique opportunity to meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in Sandpoint, ID and to provide facilities for the local county government. This bill will transfer ownership of the local General Service Administration building currently housing the Forest Service to that agency. The bill also provides authority for the Forest Service to work with Bonner County, ID to exchange the existing building to Bonner County in exchange for a new and more functional building to the Forest Service. This transfer of ownership will not only provide the opportunity for the local Forest Service office to obtain a facility that best meets their needs but also will meet the facility needs of Bonner County. The transfer of this facility will allow the Forest Service to improve service to the public, improve public and employee safety, make the Idaho Panhandle National Forest more financially competitive, and allow increased spending on resource programs that contribute to healthier ecosystems. In turn, Bonner County will benefit by providing to them a building that consolidates county offices so that better services can be provided to the local public, including ADA compliant access to the county courtrooms. Additionally, the GSA will dispose of a building that is only partially occupied and is remotely located from other GSA facilities. This is a win-win situation for the Forest Service, Bonner County, GSA, and the taxpayers and an outstanding example of the Federal Government at the local level working with the county government to create common sense solutions that result in more efficient operations and better service to the public.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Idaho Panhandle National Forest Improvement Act of 2003. This bill is an opportunity to provide lands for local benefits and to meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley of Idaho. This bill will offer for sale or exchange administrative parcels of land in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest that the Forest Service has identified as no longer in the interest of public ownership and that disposing of them will serve the public better. The proceeds from these sales will be used to improve or replace the Forest Service's Ranger Station in Idaho's Silver Valley. The Forest Service administrative parcels identified for disposal include the land permitted by the Granite/Reeder Sewer District on Priest Lake, Shoshone Camp in Shoshone County, and the North-South Ski Bowl, south of St. Maries. The bill also directs the Forest Service to improve or construct a new ranger station in the Silver Valley. The current ranger station is in dire need of repair or replacement, and this will ensure my commitment to a continued and increased presence of the Forest Service in the Silver Valley. This is a win-win situation for the taxpayers, the Forest Service, the residents of the Silver Valley, and the permittees on the parcels of land to be disposed of.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the, ``Sandpoint Land and Facilities Act of 2003''. This bill is a unique opportunity to meet the facility needs of the Forest Service in Sandpoint, ID and to provide facilities for the local county government. This bill will transfer ownership of the local General Service Administration building currently housing the Forest Service to that agency. The bill also provides authority for the Forest Service to work with Bonner County, ID to exchange the existing building to Bonner County in exchange for a new and more functional building to the Forest Service. This transfer of ownership will not only provide the opportunity for the local Forest Service office to obtain a facility that best meets their needs but also will meet the facility needs of Bonner County. The transfer of this facility will allow the Forest Service to improve service to the public, improve public and employee safety, make the Idaho Panhandle National Forest more financially competitive, and allow increased spending on resource programs that contribute to healthier ecosystems. In turn, Bonner County will benefit by providing to them a building that consolidates county offices so that better services can be provided to the local public, including ADA compliant access to the county courtrooms. Additionally, the GSA will dispose of a building that is only partially occupied and is remotely located from other GSA facilities. This is a win-win situation for the Forest Service, Bonner County, GSA, and the taxpayers and an outstanding example of the Federal Government at the local level working with the county government to create common sense solutions that result in more efficient operations and better service to the public.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wood Preservation Safety Act of 2003 with my Idaho colleague Senator Crapo and our friend from Nevada, Mr. Ensign. If enacted, this legislation would authorize the Forest Products Laboratory of the US Forest Service to study the effectiveness of silver-based biocides as a wood preservative treatment. This legislation was also introduced in the 107th Congress. According to silver experts and academics, silver biocides could serve as a viable, safe and cost effective alternative wood preservative. Given silver's long-standing role as an effective biocide, testing should be undertaken to determine silver's suitability as a wood preservative. Thus, I feel it is important to study and fully explore the potential of silver as a wood preservative. Mining has been an important part of Idaho's history since the late 1800s. It became Idaho's first industry and remains a critical part of Idaho and the nation's economy. Mining in Idaho has supplied the nation with minerals necessary for today's modern lifestyle which many of us take for granted. In 1985, the mines of Idaho's Coeur d'Alene mining district produced their one billionth ounce of silver. The Sunshine Mine was America's richest silver mine, producing over 300 million ounces of silver, more than the entire output of Nevada's famous Comstock Lode. Silver contributes to our quality of life in many ways, and its use as a biocide in wood products is an important application that must be explored. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that would create a comprehensive research program to test the viability of silver-based biocides for the treatment of wood products.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 27 at 3:00 p.m. in Room SD-366. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 246, a bill to provide that certain Bureau of Land Management land shall be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the State of New Mexico; S. 32, a bill to establish Institutes to conduct research on the prevention of, and restoration from, wildfires in forest and woodland ecosystems of the interior West; S. 203, a bill to open certain withdrawn land in Big Horn County, Wyoming, to locatable mineral development for bentonite mining; S. 278, a bill to make certain adjustments to the boundaries of the Mount Naomi Wilderness Area, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact: Dick Bouts (202-224-7545) or Jared Stubbs (202-224-7556).

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I and all of my colleagues, and I think, all Americans, have been in a period of mourning as a result of the situation that occurred about 9:15 or 9:16 this past Saturday, as many of us watched in horror, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrate over the continental United States. All of us in the Senate have had the privilege over the years of meeting many of our astronauts, and certainly even serving with some of them right here in the Senate. We have known of the phenomenal dedication and commitment of these men and women who do this very important work. It is a life of pursuing a challenge, and the reward was the service itself. It was not financial, it was not a large trophy. It was the challenge of the service and what they could provide for our country and for all mankind. I think yesterday, as many witnessed the memorial service at the Johnson Space Center in Houston-- I was unable to attend--we were reminded once again of the phenomenal caliber and capability of these seven people. Barbara Morgan from my State has pursued being an astronaut for many years. She was, up until now--and may still be--scheduled to fly into space within the year. She was part of the original teacher's program-- one of those on standby and ready to go up when the Challenger went up and was lost. I have seen the excitement of being an astronaut and of achieving as an astronaut--for herself, yes, but for the American people--through the eyes and enthusiasm of Ms. Morgan. So I am reminded through her, and what I know of her, of the caliber and talent of these people who are selected to become our astronauts. We will now set about trying to find out what went wrong, as we should, because one wonderful thing about our space program from the very beginning, is we always erred on the side of human safety. We were always extremely cautious and we built phenomenal systems of redundancy to assure that the primary role was to guarantee--or at least provide-- the optimum safety that we were technologically capable of doing; and something clearly has gone wrong. It is now our job and the job of NASA to be able to find out and to rectify it for future space travel. I just said future space travel. I am an enthusiast of the space program and always have been. In the 20-plus years I have served in Congress, I have always supported NASA and all of its efforts. It is within this country's capability, and it is within the full character of our country that we do as we have done in the space program, and that is push and explore the unknown. We were founded, we became a country, we discovered our landmass. Some people thought they might fall over the edge of the earth because some who were on that maiden voyage with Columbus thought the earth was flat and surely they would sail off into the unknown and go over the edge, never to be heard from again. It was that kind of daring that made us what we are. Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I had the privilege of traveling to Monticello for the commencement program of the bicentennial of Lewis and Clark. Of course, I am from Idaho. In those days, they didn't know there was an Idaho; they just knew there was a wilderness out there that nobody had penetrated before. It was the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson on that day in 1803 to have written a letter to Congress asking for $2,500 to put a team together to explore the unknown. Did they ever think they would return? They didn't know it. There was no guarantee. The risks were high. Of course, all the rest is history. What we witnessed last Saturday morning was a phenomenal reminder of the great spirit of adventure and the challenge that Americans have met for literally centuries. We are also reminded it is not just going down to the airport and getting on a shuttle. We have become relatively complacent that shuttles flew and there was an inherent amount of safety in them simply because they were flying so often--only to find out that simply was not the case. I hope--and I am confident of it--we will find remedies to the obvious problem that took the lives of seven wonderful human beings last Saturday and, in finding that, we will make another major step forward in allowing humans to travel into outer space and explore, or to allow their genius to travel into outer space and explore. For the adventure of it? Sure, but also for the applications of adventure and the tools of exploration that we then apply in our own lives--whether it is, in fact, velcro, or the miniaturization of the electronic equipment that is a direct result of space travel that we use in all of our lives today to allow us to live more efficiently and be more productive. That is part of the total investment that is the space program--the ability of this great country to push the outer limits and allow the genius of our people the resources to do just that. So we stand in awe of those who travel in outer space. But Saturday and yesterday were reminders that they are human, and that it is a very dangerous and risky business we pursue in the business of adventure, the business of pushing the unknown, and the great reward for accomplishing and succeeding in doing so. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I wish to discuss the national tragedy that occurred on Saturday morning and to pay tribute to the seven brave men and women who lost their lives in the space shuttle Columbia disaster. Just like people around the country, I was beginning my day on Saturday and tuning into the news programs when I learned that NASA had lost contact with the Shuttle Columbia. I was riveted to the developments as they unfolded on television and was devastated when our President addressed the Nation, announcing what we all suspected at that point, ``The Columbia is lost; There are no survivors.'' My heart and prayers go out to the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia and their families. While space travel has in some ways become routine to the American public, this tragedy is a vivid reminder of the inherent risks these brave men and women undertake to pursue the boundaries of space and science. On this day, and in the future, they deserve to be remembered for the lives they lived and I hope we will do that. In the days that have followed the tragedy, we have all become familiar with the backgrounds of the Columbia astronauts. They were men and women of such accomplishment and capability that it begins to make the extraordinary seem ordinary, but such a characterization is not fair to them. Our astronaut corps continues to attract the best of the best, and to require an unparalleled standard of achievement and excellence. For many shuttle astronauts, the opportunity to participate in a shuttle mission is the dream of a lifetime and for all of them, it is the culmination of a lifetime of hard work. I remember my excitement as a child, clipping articles about the Mercury missions and hanging them on the bulletin board in my bedroom. Today, Idaho's school children do the same with articles about the International Space Station and the missions of our space shuttle fleet. Many kids follow the progress of various NASA missions in their classrooms. NASA considers this educational outreach a critical, core mission and a major purpose for its existence as an agency. In fact, in a recent meeting I had with NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, he spent much of our time together discussing the ways that NASA is working to excite students about math and science. This is vital work. It must continue. Although Congress and NASA are now getting on with the business of investigating what went wrong, nothing should deter us from the important missions of our national space program. I join with my colleagues today in saluting the Columbia astronauts and those at NASA who make it possible for us to explore our universe.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to pay my respects to Dave Hoppe, whose last day in the Senate is today. Dave has been a friend and counselor to many of us in the Senate, and we will miss him. It would be fair to say that Dave Hoppe has been the consummate Senate staffer. While a strong partisan, he has always been fair. He is decent. He is respectful and considerate of everyone with whom he comes in contact, and of the institution as a whole. He understands and practices the comity that is invaluable in the Senate. When I look back on the service of Dave Hoppe, I see him as the still center of the maelstrom. While the chaos that is, on occasion, the Senate swirled and howled around him, he was calm; his voice never hurried, never rose. His counsel was sound, very sound; sometimes tinged with humor, good humor; never malicious or mean spirited. Always timely, always mindful of the institution, always aware of the possibilities and the consequences of its actions. David knows that the Senate, immutable as it is, will go on even though he is no longer a part of its daily operations. However, those of us who have worked with him, and will continue to work with him, know the imprint he has left on the institution, the national policies he has helped shape, and the example he has set for all in the Senate to follow. I join my colleagues in recognizing Dave Hoppe for his achievements and contributions to the Senate, and sending my best wishes to him and his family as they begin the next chapter of a remarkable life.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Rules of the Special Committee on Aging.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to let my fellow Senators know of a very happy addition to my family. On December 22, at 3:05 in the afternoon, my daughter-in-law, Stephanie Craig, with the help of her husband, our son Michael, and our grandson Aidan, gave birth to our newest grandchild, a beautiful baby boy named Rowan Anton Craig. He came in bigger than his older brother at 8 pounds, 9 ounces and 21 inches long. At 3:15 that same afternoon, my wife Suzanne and I watched our new grandbaby being weighed and measured and swaddled, and we got to hold this bundle of life. What a thrill to be there in the first few minutes of his life. His middle name, Anton, comes from his great-grandfather on his mother's side of the family. Anton was the patron saint of animals, so we expect to share with him our love of animals, along with many other experiences. Let me thank my colleagues for your indulgence in letting me share with all of you one of the most unique experiences in my life, a wonderful Christmas present: a new grandchild in our family.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Lott pertaining to the introduction of S. 219 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, tonight our President comes to Capitol Hill, as Presidents historically do, to deliver a State of the Union Message both to us here in Congress and to the country at large. I would have to say that this State of the Union probably, in his Presidency, is one of the most critical. We have a very bold President who has not ducked from any of his responsibilities, and in so he has been a very dynamic, forceful leader for our country. Tonight I believe he comes to Capitol Hill to challenge us here in the Congress on a variety of fronts, to challenge us to do our work in a bipartisan way, not only for our country and for the citizens of our country but for the world at large. This is a President who tonight will speak on a variety of topics. Let me talk about four areas I think he will dwell on for much of his time. First of all is growing our economy and creating jobs. There is no question that we are in, and have come through, a recession. We have men and women in our country who are out of work. The economy has slowed. The revenues to government have frustrated our States. Certainly we have to recognize and deal with that here, as revenues have declined. But most important, clearly it is an issue of men and women out of work. He will challenge us to grow our economy and to create new jobs, and he will do so by the dynamic approach of the stimulus package that will have tax reduction in it, to get money back into the economy and out to not only the job creator but middle-income Americans themselves, those who are the hard-working men and women of our country. It will be argued from the other side, with oftentimes the gnashing of teeth and the wringing of hands, that somehow the President is going to take money away from Government. Somehow, it is Government, if you leave the money in Government, that will create all of these jobs and will provide the safety net and the security for the American people. Yet just last week we saw our colleagues on the other side offer amendment after amendment that would have driven up our deficit by nearly $450 billion to $500 billion over the next several years. They clearly demonstrated that their intent is to keep all the money they can get and spend it, instead of in any way trying to create a package that will not take money out of the pockets of the working men and women of our country but will also generate the incentives that will cause the economy of this country to reinvest and to create jobs. Over the next several months--and I hope it will only be a couple of months--the Finance Committee here in the Senate, and hopefully the House Ways and Means Committee, will come forth with a budget and a budget proposal that will include within it, I trust, many of the incentives that our President is proposing in his economic stimulus package that he will talk about tonight. We can be a positive force in the economy by rewarding and recognizing both investment and hard work, instead of penalizing them by taking more and more, or by creating the kinds of hurdles or obstacles that the investment community has to take to reinvest in the economy. So I hope we listen closely to that proposal tonight, as our President visits with us about it. He has obviously talked about--and I think will talk again tonight-- strengthening and improving health care in this country. We worked at it a long while last year. We were at the threshold of dealing with Medicare reform and prescription drugs. Those probably are some of the most difficult areas with which to deal, but the most important. Prescription drugs have become a dynamic part of health care delivery in this country, yet we still deal with an old Medicare model that is not paying its way to the provider and the caregiver. As a result, many of our senior citizens are having difficulty finding a primary care provider, and are paying $300, $400, $500, $600 a month oftentimes, and more, for prescription drugs. We can deal with that this year and we can deal with it in a bipartisan way. The President has supported us in that. But last year, struggle as we might, somehow some of my colleagues thought it was an issue better left unaddressed until after the election. Why? I suspect they thought they could take it to the people and somehow gain political favor by arguing that one side or the other had denied the senior citizens of this country access to a viable modern Medicare program with prescription drugs. I believe that argument fell hollow. What was heard by all of us who were out running for reelection last year was: Congress, do your work. Do it on a timely basis. Do it on a responsible basis. Yes, and do it in a bipartisan way. But don't drag your feet, don't argue, and, most important, don't in every way avoid getting your work done, failing to address the problem with the argument that somehow you will gain political favor by doing so; that will not work. I think the President may also talk about something else that is reshaping American health care, and that is, of course, excessive lawsuits that are causing doctors literally to pack their bags and move to other States that have been bold enough to do tort reform over the last several years and where, as a result, the cost of insurance for care providers is not as great as it is in other areas of our country. This is something we have to deal with here. Yes, we have to look at a certain segment of our economy right in the eye and say fair is fair. A reward for malpractice suit should not make both the patient and his attorney multimillionaires in a single act. Clearly, a person injured by malpractice should be rewarded for that injury. None of us argue that. But the fact that in some instances predator lawyers can make a million dollars or more a case doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I don't think it makes a lot of sense to the consumers, who now find they have to pick up the bill because of malpractice insurance that some doctors are now paying that is in the $200,000 to $300,000 to $400,000 a year range. That is, by any definition, excessive. I think our President will speak to that this evening, will talk about tort reform, and charge us, this Congress, in a bipartisan way to deal with that responsibly. It is obvious to me, at least, that many Americans will be tuning in tonight to listen to the President on those issues. But obviously there is now another issue on which he will spend, I would guess, a good deal of time. That is the issue of defending peace and security at home and abroad. The President came to us last year in a post-9/11 environment with a very bold reform package. In the waning days of the last Congress, we produced a new agency of our Government entitled the Department of Homeland Security. That was a bold step on the part of our President. Anyone on the other side who says that we are less secure today as a country than we were before 9/11, or that we are not as secure as we ought to be, fails to recognize the significant amount of money and the major steps that have been and are now being taken to build greater security for the citizens of our country. I was chuckling a little bit the other day when a Member of this Senate talked about not having accomplished anything. I thought, my goodness, that Senator must never travel on the airlines anymore, must never go through security checks that sometimes take 20, 30, and 40 minutes, that sometimes require all of your bags to be inspected, your shoes taken off, your coat and jacket to be taken off. I have seen, and I am sure the Presiding Officer has seen, 4- and 5- year-old kids almost strip-searched and wanded at the airports. Arguably, that is security. Frustrating? Yes. But I think our airlines today are substantially more secure than they have been. They will become increasingly secure as we refine security, and the people at those checkpoints become all the more efficient in their jobs. That is part of what this Congress has accomplished. Certainly border security has become increasingly tight. The ability to identify illegal aliens who may be here for a purpose of doing us harm is now an aggressive process, well underway. Our Department of Justice has moved very aggressively to find, apprehend, and prosecute those where cases can be effectively built that they are, in one form or another, here with a purpose other than finding work and providing beneficial service to this economy. For anyone to say we are less secure today is a surprise to me. Does it say we are as secure as we ought to be? Certainly not. But it also suggests, in light of the threat of terrorism, that we, as a country, live differently today and must think differently in a post-9/11 environment, that we must be constantly vigilant and, yes, our agencies of government--whether it be Federal, State, or local--must improve their abilities. And they are being given the resources to do just that, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Certainly, that is a challenge. I think it is a challenge that the President will speak about this evening. Lastly, and certainly as important, will be the issue of security abroad. Our Nation is a humane and civil nation. We are a peace-loving nation. We have always taken war as a very serious undertaking and one from which--while we do not enjoy it in any way when it comes to our own citizens' security and the security of freedom-loving citizens and allies around the world--we have not stepped back. Certainly, in a post-cold-war environment, we recognize, as the world's superpower, that awesome responsibility and force we have. This President--and I have heard him, as have all of us--speaks very clearly to that, recognizing not only his responsibilities as our President and Commander in Chief, but it is a responsibility he does not take lightly nor does he take casually. He sees it as a huge responsibility and one that he and his Cabinet treat most seriously. In doing so, he has operated both in a bold and cautious fashion. For anyone to suggest anything less than that did not hear our President's speech at the United Nations and his willingness to challenge them to do their job with the passage of the U.N. resolution that, in fact, finally put inspectors back into Iraq to do just that, to inspect and to find if Saddam Hussein had lived up to the original U.N. resolution, first and foremost, and, secondly, to see if, in fact, he was continuing to build weapons of mass destruction and if he had gained any kind of nuclear capability. It has already been well established that he has both chemical and biological weapons. Those were found. Those were recorded. Yet somehow today the world is cautiously saying: Well, that doesn't seem to count anymore. It is what you find today or tomorrow that will cause this country and our allies to disarm Saddam Hussein. I do not think the President or his people see it that way. And while they have been willing to give the United Nations ample time to respond, this President does have a responsibility, and that responsibility is, yes, to the world at large and the freedom-loving people around the world, but his responsibility is to us, here at home, to make sure the actions we take in foreign policy increasingly reflect on our security and our stability. I think the President will talk about that this evening, as certainly he and his Cabinet have been involved in that over the last good number of weeks and months. It has been one of his primary missions, along with bringing this economy back to life and moving us forward as a country. This is a critical speech for our country, both here and abroad, as this President speaks to us and to the American people about his vision of leadership and responsibility, to move our economy, to create jobs, to put people back to work and, at the same time, to strengthen and improve health care and the general well-being of the citizens. He will, by his proposal of faith-based approaches, encourage us to deal with acts of compassion. The President wants to apply compassion to some of the deepest problems in America. That is a side of our President that has been badly underestimated by some. He will urge Congress to pass both his faith-based and citizen service initiatives. Why? Because it is in the best interest of this country to do so. For good people to be helping good people who are in need of help, with some assistance from our Government, at a tremendously lower cost and in a considerably more compassionate way, is exactly what this President will speak to in that initiative. Lastly, of course, as I have mentioned, is defending the peace and the security at home and abroad. September 11, nearly 2 years ago now, was a time of awakening under an attack and a loss of our fellow citizens' lives that we didn't think could happen. While some experts had studied the issue over the years and had told us that someday it would happen, I don't believe there was ever a true belief that it could happen here. Now we know it can. For us to think it will never happen again would be to dramatically underestimate not only the ability of the human mind to figure a new approach but the intent of terrorists to do our citizens and our country wrong. We have made some great steps forward in reshaping Government and its agencies to be more sensitive, to be able to connect the dots of intelligence and information and, out of that, to make an assessment as to the security of our country. Also, this President has gone much beyond that. He has reached out to the world at large and challenged people not to in any way encourage or ignore a risk of terrorism and to deal with terrorists as if they were enemies of the world and enemies of the state. Clearly, we have a role, as a very powerful country, in working with our allies to make sure terrorism and terrorists have no safe haven anywhere in the world. That is why our President insisted that U.N. resolutions be enforced and that we go back into Iraq, as the United Nations inspections team has over the last several months, to determine whether Saddam Hussein was living up to U.N. resolutions that largely were to disarm and neutralize him after the Desert Storm war over a decade ago. That will be another important part of his speech this evening, as he assesses that for us and challenges us, both as a country and as a Congress, to work with him in the days to come. Trade and jobs and the economy on one hand, security on another, these are issues that Congresses in the past have faced and this Congress will face. Our challenge is to be able to work together, not for one side to gain political advantage over the other but to see how we can best solve these problems. Many of them, if not most, will have to be dealt with in a bipartisan way so that our country truly does come together not only to make ourselves more secure, but in that security to be able to live in a good life, to be able to have the resources and the wherewithal to sustain life in both a livable and enjoyable fashion. That is the American dream. Most important, that is the American responsibility, be it here at home or to the world at large. That is our challenge. I believe our President will once again challenge us this evening to greatness. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber this morning, with a number of my colleagues, to discuss what is a critical issue in timber country across the United States, where men and women go to work every day in our sawmills only to find the mill has been shut down and the lights have been turned out. As a result, that has been a problem which has grown for some time because of the Canadians, their style of production at this moment, and the huge volume of timber they are pouring into this country. It is a market condition that will continue to shut down many of our mills, some that will never turn on their lights again, some that will never again employ men and women in the small towns where most of those mills are across the country. Today, some of my colleagues and I are introducing legislation to work cooperatively with the administration in trying to resolve this through negotiation. This legislation is being offered on behalf of myself, Senator Baucus, Senator Crapo, my colleague from Idaho, who is in the Chamber, Senator Sessions, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, Senator Cochran, Senator Burns, and Senator Lincoln. In introducing this legislation today, we are amending the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify what is an appropriate deduction from the price of merchandise. We believe the deduction of the countervailing duty should be included in the calculation in determining whether or not and to what extent there have been sales dumped at less than fair market value in the United States. Some time ago, we established a countervailing duty against Canadian products coming into this market. This is in response to that and the way it is calculated. While the Department of Commerce has worked diligently on the softwood lumber case, the Canadian industry and Government continue to effectively avoid the countervailing duty and antidumping orders. The most recent move by the Canadian Government to avoid the countervailing duty is to declare a significant region of interior British Columbia bug kill timber. This particular green lumber--or timber in this case-- is being sold at salvage prices and has flooded the amount of available timber already in the market. The price for this timber is now as low as a dollar per thousand board feet, while the competitive market value is over $100 per thousand board feet--in other words, on the stump at the time of the sale. I remind my colleagues a majority of this determined bug kill has not yet been affected by bugs. It is simply a decision made by the Canadian Government in this instance. Yet they are selling it at prices that are as if it had been affected by disease. Next, British Columbia has revised their forest practice code to reduce costs to the lumber manufacturers by decreasing forestry standards and placing logging corporations in charge of enforcement actions. That is like the U.S. Forest Service turning to the logging companies and saying the logging companies can enforce all of the environmental laws, as well as the laws under which we govern and manage our forests. We will turn that authority over to the logging companies. What does this do to Canadian timber companies? It literally saves them millions of dollars in operating expenses. These recent and blatant moves by the Canadians reveal their true desires to continue to flood the U.S. markets and their unwillingness to find a resolution that provides both security for U.S. and Canadian jobs. Our proposal specifies that countervailing duties are to be treated as a cost of production, a clarification of the Trade Act that all duties should be considered a cost of production incurred on shipments to the United States. The deduction of countervailing duty would assist in determining whether or not and to what extent there have been sales dumped at less than fair market value in the United States. Dumping is when a company sells a product into the United States for less than its cost of production. The Department of Commerce currently does not consider countervailing duties, which offset subsidies, as a cost of production when calculating the amount of dumping and requisite antidumping duties. The Department's policy of ignoring countervailing duties when calculating antidumping duties undervalues the actual amount of the dumping. Fair value typically is the sales price of the merchandise in the country-of-origin market. The antidumping analysis compares fair value of a good from another country to the fair value of a good from the United States to determine if the good from another country was dumped at an unfair price in the U.S. market. For example, in the U.S.-Canadian softwood lumber dispute, the Department of Commerce determined that the Canadian provinces subsidize their industry by providing lumber mills timber at prices that are 33 to 50 percent below market value. It also found that Canadian companies were selling lumber in the United States at below their subsidized cost of production, requiring an antidumping duty of 8.79 percent. The antidumping duty currently undervalues the Canadian dumping practices by comparing a subsidized cost of production to the price of lumber rather than comparing the cost of production plus the countervailing duty to the price of lumber. It is all in the math, and in this kind of math it is quite obvious that Canadians are taking tremendous advantage of the marketplace. As I said earlier, the lights in the sawmills across America are going out. Such a change in the Department's policy, we believe--those of us who have authored this legislation--is consistent with the practices of the European community and of Canada. It is time the Department of Commerce correct this accounting error, and it is time for the Canadian Government and their industry leaders to come to the table to negotiate a free and fair market price for both U.S. and Canadian lumber products. I believe this Congress will not tolerate the kind of dumping activity that is going on in the market today, which appears to be at this moment not only blatant but an attempt to grab even a larger market share in this country. For years, I have worked on this issue, and I clearly recognize the importance in the overall market of Canadian lumber in our market to meet our housing demands, but to do so and to expand that market base at a cost to U.S. jobs and U.S. producers is not fair, nor is it balanced. That is why we have introduced this legislation today. Several other colleagues who are cosponsors in the legislation plan to come to the floor during this period of morning business to speak to this issue. I am extremely pleased to be joined by Senator Baucus, Senator Lott, and Senator Snowe. I mention those three specifically because they are on the Finance Committee. This is legislation that will be referred to the Finance Committee. As my colleague from Idaho so clearly said, this is a simple correction in the law. It is a practice followed by other countries in Europe and Canada itself. Clearly, it would change the dynamics of how we deal with Canada, but it would also show the Canadians that we are not going to stand idly by and allow what is so blatant and so intentional in both the pricing of their stumpage and, therefore, the cost of entry into our market. Blatant dumping in the market for the purpose of gaining market share and putting some of our businesses out of business should not be tolerated. We have all heard over the years the phrase ``mill town.'' It is so true today, still, in those areas of our country that are adjacent to private and public forests, that it is the sawmill that often is the larger employer in the community, providing excellent jobs at high pay to the men and women who live within that community. When that mill goes down and those citizens are out of work, there is no alternative, there are no other jobs, or there are limited jobs in the community. That community oftentimes is anywhere from 20 to 100 to 150 miles from the next community. So that wage earner oftentimes is faced with a very tough choice he or she may have to make. That is not just to go search for another job but oftentimes to pick up their family and move from that small community they had chosen to live in and to raise their families. Why? Because a singular employee in this instance was either shut down or put out of business. Why? Because of predatory practices on the part of our friends to the north. And I say ``friends'' because I believe that. But certainly in this segment of their economy, they are choosing to enter the most lucrative timber market in the world--ours--with a thriving, aggressive homebuilding industry and an economy in the homebuilding industry that is very strong today, to supply that product. I recognize the sheer demand for dimensional lumber in this market is much greater than both United States producers from private and public lands can supply, and Canadians can and have had and will have a substantial portion of our market. But now, to do so intentionally so the big boys can get bigger in Canada, putting oftentimes out of business the smaller producer here in the United States, is something we should not stand idly by and tolerate. Mr. President, I see I am being joined in the Chamber by my colleague from Mississippi. Senator Lott is a cosponsor of the legislation we have just introduced dealing with the Tariff Act of 1930. Mississippi has a thriving timber industry that is a major contributor to their State's economy, and especially to rural Mississippi's workforce. So I will be happy to yield to Senator Lott for him to discuss this issue, of course, or any other issue he might wish to discuss.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Lott coming to the Chamber this morning to speak on the role the timber industry plays in the economy of Mississippi and how important it is. It is important to rural Mississippi, to rural Idaho, to rural America, where we struggle mightily to keep a viable productive job base. Clearly over the last decade, the economy of this country flourished. And while all of that was going on, it was rural Idaho that felt much of the pain and shared not in that new growth economy, in part because of the very problem both Senator Lott and I and Senator Baucus and others are addressing. My colleague Senator Crapo spoke to the matter as well. This is a relatively simple adjustment in trade law, but it could have a substantial impact on the Canadians and the current practices in which they are involved, practices we believe are not in the best interest of both governments and both countries. To have a nearly ``cut at will'' policy, both in provincial and crown timber in Canada, is at best frustrating to some of us who believe not only is that bad policy but, from an environmental point of view, it is not an effectively balanced policy. Are the practices being adhered to that should be adhered to for the purposes of sustaining yields and ongoing production of timber? Or is it simply an effort to keep people at work, in this instance, and, more importantly now, because of the declaration of green timber unaffected by disease or bug, now being called bug kill timber, is it simply a policy to grab an increasingly larger portion of the market? When many of these medium- and small-size mills go down, oftentimes they don't come back. If they are down for a longer period of time, the workforce disperses in search of another job and, as a result of that, many of these mills that go down will stay down permanently. That is exactly what larger producers in Canada are hoping for, as it will allow them an ever-increasing larger portion of the market here in the lower 48 States. I hope the Finance Committee will hold hearings and move quickly on this issue. It is important for our economy and, more importantly, it is a small town, mill town issue that in many States, such as Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, and throughout the South where there are large timber reserves, becomes a critical way of sustaining the rural economy.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber this morning, with a number of my colleagues, to discuss what is a critical issue in timber country across the United States, where men and women go to work every day in our sawmills only to find the mill has been shut down and the lights have been turned out. As a result, that has been a problem which has grown for some time because of the Canadians, their style of production at this moment, and the huge volume of timber they are pouring into this country. It is a market condition that will continue to shut down many of our mills, some that will never turn on their lights again, some that will never again employ men and women in the small towns where most of those mills are across the country. Today, some of my colleagues and I are introducing legislation to work cooperatively with the administration in trying to resolve this through negotiation. This legislation is being offered on behalf of myself, Senator Baucus, Senator Crapo, my colleague from Idaho, who is in the Chamber, Senator Sessions, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, Senator Cochran, Senator Burns, and Senator Lincoln. In introducing this legislation today, we are amending the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify what is an appropriate deduction from the price of merchandise. We believe the deduction of the countervailing duty should be included in the calculation in determining whether or not and to what extent there have been sales dumped at less than fair market value in the United States. Some time ago, we established a countervailing duty against Canadian products coming into this market. This is in response to that and the way it is calculated. While the Department of Commerce has worked diligently on the softwood lumber case, the Canadian industry and Government continue to effectively avoid the countervailing duty and antidumping orders. The most recent move by the Canadian Government to avoid the countervailing duty is to declare a significant region of interior British Columbia bug kill timber. This particular green lumber--or timber in this case-- is being sold at salvage prices and has flooded the amount of available timber already in the market. The price for this timber is now as low as a dollar per thousand board feet, while the competitive market value is over $100 per thousand board feet--in other words, on the stump at the time of the sale. I remind my colleagues a majority of this determined bug kill has not yet been affected by bugs. It is simply a decision made by the Canadian Government in this instance. Yet they are selling it at prices that are as if it had been affected by disease. Next, British Columbia has revised their forest practice code to reduce costs to the lumber manufacturers by decreasing forestry standards and placing logging corporations in charge of enforcement actions. That is like the U.S. Forest Service turning to the logging companies and saying the logging companies can enforce all of the environmental laws, as well as the laws under which we govern and manage our forests. We will turn that authority over to the logging companies. What does this do to Canadian timber companies? It literally saves them millions of dollars in operating expenses. These recent and blatant moves by the Canadians reveal their true desires to continue to flood the U.S. markets and their unwillingness to find a resolution that provides both security for U.S. and Canadian jobs. Our proposal specifies that countervailing duties are to be treated as a cost of production, a clarification of the Trade Act that all duties should be considered a cost of production incurred on shipments to the United States. The deduction of countervailing duty would assist in determining whether or not and to what extent there have been sales dumped at less than fair market value in the United States. Dumping is when a company sells a product into the United States for less than its cost of production. The Department of Commerce currently does not consider countervailing duties, which offset subsidies, as a cost of production when calculating the amount of dumping and requisite antidumping duties. The Department's policy of ignoring countervailing duties when calculating antidumping duties undervalues the actual amount of the dumping. Fair value typically is the sales price of the merchandise in the country-of-origin market. The antidumping analysis compares fair value of a good from another country to the fair value of a good from the United States to determine if the good from another country was dumped at an unfair price in the U.S. market. For example, in the U.S.-Canadian softwood lumber dispute, the Department of Commerce determined that the Canadian provinces subsidize their industry by providing lumber mills timber at prices that are 33 to 50 percent below market value. It also found that Canadian companies were selling lumber in the United States at below their subsidized cost of production, requiring an antidumping duty of 8.79 percent. The antidumping duty currently undervalues the Canadian dumping practices by comparing a subsidized cost of production to the price of lumber rather than comparing the cost of production plus the countervailing duty to the price of lumber. It is all in the math, and in this kind of math it is quite obvious that Canadians are taking tremendous advantage of the marketplace. As I said earlier, the lights in the sawmills across America are going out. Such a change in the Department's policy, we believe--those of us who have authored this legislation--is consistent with the practices of the European community and of Canada. It is time the Department of Commerce correct this accounting error, and it is time for the Canadian Government and their industry leaders to come to the table to negotiate a free and fair market price for both U.S. and Canadian lumber products. I believe this Congress will not tolerate the kind of dumping activity that is going on in the market today, which appears to be at this moment not only blatant but an attempt to grab even a larger market share in this country. For years, I have worked on this issue, and I clearly recognize the importance in the overall market of Canadian lumber in our market to meet our housing demands, but to do so and to expand that market base at a cost to U.S. jobs and U.S. producers is not fair, nor is it balanced. That is why we have introduced this legislation today. Several other colleagues who are cosponsors in the legislation plan to come to the floor during this period of morning business to speak to this issue. I am extremely pleased to be joined by Senator Baucus, Senator Lott, and Senator Snowe. I mention those three specifically because they are on the Finance Committee. This is legislation that will be referred to the Finance Committee. As my colleague from Idaho so clearly said, this is a simple correction in the law. It is a practice followed by other countries in Europe and Canada itself. Clearly, it would change the dynamics of how we deal with Canada, but it would also show the Canadians that we are not going to stand idly by and allow what is so blatant and so intentional in both the pricing of their stumpage and, therefore, the cost of entry into our market. Blatant dumping in the market for the purpose of gaining market share and putting some of our businesses out of business should not be tolerated. We have all heard over the years the phrase ``mill town.'' It is so true today, still, in those areas of our country that are adjacent to private and public forests, that it is the sawmill that often is the larger employer in the community, providing excellent jobs at high pay to the men and women who live within that community. When that mill goes down and those citizens are out of work, there is no alternative, there are no other jobs, or there are limited jobs in the community. That community oftentimes is anywhere from 20 to 100 to 150 miles from the next community. So that wage earner oftentimes is faced with a very tough choice he or she may have to make. That is not just to go search for another job but oftentimes to pick up their family and move from that small community they had chosen to live in and to raise their families. Why? Because a singular employee in this instance was either shut down or put out of business. Why? Because of predatory practices on the part of our friends to the north. And I say ``friends'' because I believe that. But certainly in this segment of their economy, they are choosing to enter the most lucrative timber market in the world--ours--with a thriving, aggressive homebuilding industry and an economy in the homebuilding industry that is very strong today, to supply that product. I recognize the sheer demand for dimensional lumber in this market is much greater than both United States producers from private and public lands can supply, and Canadians can and have had and will have a substantial portion of our market. But now, to do so intentionally so the big boys can get bigger in Canada, putting oftentimes out of business the smaller producer here in the United States, is something we should not stand idly by and tolerate. Mr. President, I see I am being joined in the Chamber by my colleague from Mississippi. Senator Lott is a cosponsor of the legislation we have just introduced dealing with the Tariff Act of 1930. Mississippi has a thriving timber industry that is a major contributor to their State's economy, and especially to rural Mississippi's workforce. So I will be happy to yield to Senator Lott for him to discuss this issue, of course, or any other issue he might wish to discuss.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Lott coming to the Chamber this morning to speak on the role the timber industry plays in the economy of Mississippi and how important it is. It is important to rural Mississippi, to rural Idaho, to rural America, where we struggle mightily to keep a viable productive job base. Clearly over the last decade, the economy of this country flourished. And while all of that was going on, it was rural Idaho that felt much of the pain and shared not in that new growth economy, in part because of the very problem both Senator Lott and I and Senator Baucus and others are addressing. My colleague Senator Crapo spoke to the matter as well. This is a relatively simple adjustment in trade law, but it could have a substantial impact on the Canadians and the current practices in which they are involved, practices we believe are not in the best interest of both governments and both countries. To have a nearly ``cut at will'' policy, both in provincial and crown timber in Canada, is at best frustrating to some of us who believe not only is that bad policy but, from an environmental point of view, it is not an effectively balanced policy. Are the practices being adhered to that should be adhered to for the purposes of sustaining yields and ongoing production of timber? Or is it simply an effort to keep people at work, in this instance, and, more importantly now, because of the declaration of green timber unaffected by disease or bug, now being called bug kill timber, is it simply a policy to grab an increasingly larger portion of the market? When many of these medium- and small-size mills go down, oftentimes they don't come back. If they are down for a longer period of time, the workforce disperses in search of another job and, as a result of that, many of these mills that go down will stay down permanently. That is exactly what larger producers in Canada are hoping for, as it will allow them an ever-increasing larger portion of the market here in the lower 48 States. I hope the Finance Committee will hold hearings and move quickly on this issue. It is important for our economy and, more importantly, it is a small town, mill town issue that in many States, such as Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, and throughout the South where there are large timber reserves, becomes a critical way of sustaining the rural economy.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. One minute.

Mr. CRAIG. The superfund site in Coeur d'Alene, ID, that the Senator from New Jersey referred to, 3 years ago was touted to cost $1 billion to clean up. As a result of a cooperative State plan, in conjunction with EPA--the first unique plan of this kind, designed under a new State commission; and our new Director Whitman has signed off on it-- that same area can be cleaned up and meet all of the standards for less than $300 million over a 12-year to 15-year period. Now, $300 million versus $1 billion is a heck of a lot of money. Because of these new cooperative relationships and State plans--that past EPAs refused to negotiate and bring States into the process--but because we are now doing that, I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, there is great opportunity for reform. You just don't throw money at these problems. You resolve them in new, creative ways, and still meet standards for clean water and clean air.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for working with all of us to reshape the legislation to fit those and to compensate those and help those who truly have lost through disaster. That is exactly what the Cochran amendment now does. In so shaping that, we are also able to fit in those livestock farmers and ranchers who lost grazing and need some more assistance for food supplementation and hay supplementation for their livestock. We already provided them in October with substantial assistance. This is in addition to that. I am not a midwesterner. I can't talk about the extent of the drought down in the Midwest as my colleague from North Dakota just did. But I can tell you that the 44 counties of Idaho which are split by two time zones, three air sheds, and three different moisture patterns did rather well this year. With commodity prices up, they are doing better than they probably had anticipated they would at the beginning of this crop season a year ago. But 27 counties did experience extreme drought conditions. They do mostly irrigation there. The pastureland and the grazing lands there were badly damaged and livestock had to be brought in early. High-priced hay had to be purchased to feed the livestock in order to sustain or maintain the family operation. That drove up the cost of hay for the dairy farmer. While none of this goes to the dairy farmer, his costs of operation have gone up substantially. What I think we have to recognize is what we do is a balance in the first instance. What we ought to be doing is dealing with those who truly experienced loss through natural disaster, as the Cochran amendment now does. That is what is important. That is what we ought to be about. We have a farm bill that some of us voted for and some didn't. I can tell you it is probably not the farm bill I would have written. But we now have it. There are those in the Chamber who will claim it is their work product and that we are working to implement it and make it work. We ought not just be constantly adding to it and having it become the second largest income source for American agriculture. It doesn't work very well if we are the ones who they end up depending upon mostly. But when a natural disaster strikes--whether it be a drought or a hurricane or too much water and a flood--that is what we do best. And that is what we ought to be about. That is exactly what the Senator from Mississippi and I and others are attempting to address in the Cochran amendment. Yes. Money will come to Idaho--not as much as to others. But I believe this is a balanced and appropriate way to deal with a bill that will get to the President's desk and that will be signed.