Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am honored to recognize a truly remarkable individual today. Gail Chumbley is a history teacher at Eagle High School in Eagle, ID. A high school history teacher; there are many individuals who can claim this job title but few who have done so much. Gail is an amazing teacher, passionately devoted to teaching our American experience to her students. Not only does she teach about events in our Nation's history, she has ventured into the next realm, moving the tenets of American citizenship into the real world for her students. I first heard of Gail's efforts 4 years ago when she became actively involved in the Library of Congress's Veterans Oral History Project four years ago. At that time, she had organized the recording of over 300 oral histories for Eagle High School's library alone. She expanded the effort to include other Idaho schools and collaborated with local civics groups to record literally hundreds more interviews that went to both the Eagle High School archives and the Idaho Oral History Center. One of the most significant accomplishments of Gail and her students was their participation in the Veterans Stand Down in Boise where homeless veterans were given the opportunity to record interviews. Her efforts were not confined to veterans of past wars. Gail and her students also have sent gift boxes and cards to our current service women and men in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. She was instrumental in making Eagle High School the top school donor for the World War II Memorial, with a donation of close to $25,000. The list of her accomplishments, enhanced further with her national recognition by the Daughters of the American Revolution this year is long, but that is not the focus of my remarks today. Gail has turned the teaching of history and civics into the action of patriotism. Perhaps the most compelling and significant accomplishment of Gail Chumbley is not her esteemed list of awards and honors, which are many and richly-deserved. Her most important contribution is her role in creating a sense of citizenship within the hearts and intellect of many Idaho young people. This citizenship lives on in these students as they grow into adulthood and manifests itself in their actions, commitments and convictions. It is an entity that grows exponentially and of its own volition, eclipsing plaques, certificates and statuettes. These gather dust, but what they represent are the pillars upon which our country stands firm. This living citizenship is immortalized by the marbled statues of men and women not far from here, and in words carved of the same. I honor Gail Chumbley today: American patriot, exemplary citizen and role model for all of us.

Mr. CRAPO

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

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss the issue that seems to be the major topic of debate now in the Senate. It is that of the question of how we approach the nomination and confirmation of judges. Frankly, I think that the level of hostility and the level of debate that has increased around this issue is becoming alarming to the American people--not so much necessarily because of their objection or concern about the various positions being taken but because of the concern about how the Senate is running, the question of whether we in the Senate are working on the business of the American people in a way that is in the best interest of public discourse, or whether the dynamic in the Senate is deteriorating into a highly partisan, highly personal, and highly difficult climate in which we are increasingly facing gridlock. Mr. President, I would like to go back through the debate because a lot has been said about what the role of the filibuster is as we approach the issue of confirmation of judges. I believe it is important because, frankly, I notice in some of the advertising that is going on across the country right now that the argument being made seems to be that the filibuster was established in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers as one of the checks and balances of our system. The reality is that from 1789 until 1806, the Senate did not have anything close to a filibuster. In fact, the Senate had the traditional motion for the previous question in its rules, which, for those who don't follow these things closely, meant that a majority could close debate on any issue when there was a motion to proceed to a vote. The majority could close the debate. So, clearly, there is no mention of the filibuster in the Constitution and, clearly, until at least 1806 there was no possibility for utilization of the filibuster in the Senate. Even after 1806, when for other reasons the Senate eliminated the motion for the previous question, the idea of filibustering never really took hold in the Senate until much later. In fact, it was about the 1840s when a group of Senators realized that under the rules there was no way for them to be stopped from debating, and they basically started the idea of filibustering and approaching the management of issues in the Senate by utilization of the tool of filibustering--namely, refusing to stop debating and let the Senate move on to a vote. Even though that practice started in the 1840s, it was used very sparingly and over the years really wasn't that big of a problem. When Senators tried it, they worked out issues they were raising, and issues were resolved. The Senate never really adopted a cloture rule until the 1917 timeframe. The cloture rule, for those who don't follow Senate procedure that closely, is the rule by which the Senate tries to stop a filibuster. It has been in different forms over the years, but in its current form--since 1917, it has evolved--it requires 60 votes in the Senate to adopt cloture, which means that we will then go into a process which will eventually wind down debate on a bill and move us to a point where we can vote on a matter. So even in 1917, when the original cloture rule was adopted, it didn't really mention judicial nominations, because at that point the Senate didn't really contemplate the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations. The cloture rule was rewritten in 1949. At that time, it was expanded to include all matters which technically included judicial nominations. But even after 1949, filibusters were rarely, if ever, even tried on judicial nominations; and when they were tried on judicial nominations, with one exception, when both parties supported the filibuster, even when filibusters were tried on judicial nominations, they were stopped. Never, until this last Congress, the Congress previous to this, with that one exception I mentioned when both parties supported it, did the Senate support the utilization of a filibuster on the nomination of a judge. In the last couple of years, we have seen an increasing and frequent utilization of filibusters for nominations on the judiciary. That is what brought us to this battle right now. The question the Senate is grappling with and which the American people, I believe, are justifiably very concerned about is, What should the role of the Senate be? What should the procedure of the Senate be when considering judicial nominations? That takes us, in my opinion, back to the U.S. Constitution. In article II of the U.S. Constitution, which is the core around which this debate should focus, it provides that the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court and all other officers of the United States, which includes judges of the other courts. The President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint. So the question there is, Does the Constitution absolutely prohibit a filibuster? No. Does the Constitution absolutely authorize filibusters? No. The Constitution simply says the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, he shall appoint judges. Our job now is to determine how to run the rules of the Senate in the closest accommodation to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. The question, as I see it, is, Does the Constitution contemplate that the President is entitled to a vote on his nominees? And if so, is that vote a majority vote or is it a vote of a supermajority, like 60, or two-thirds? It has been argued on the floor today that all the Constitution contemplates is some kind of a vote, whether it be a 60- vote supermajority, a two-thirds vote, or a majority vote, that the Senate can decide, but all the Constitution contemplates is some kind of a vote. I disagree. I believe the Constitution contemplated that by a majority vote the Senate would give its advice and consent. I believe the best way to operate this Senate is to utilize the principle of advice and consent as one in which we should give the President an up- or-down vote on those nominees who are able to get sufficient support to get out of the Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate. As I say, historically, never, until the last Congress, has the Senate operated in any other way. There are those who have tried filibusters, but never have just 41 Senators stood solidly together and said: No, we will not allow a nominee who has enough majority support to get to the floor of the Senate to have a vote. There are those who are saying the President is trying to pack the Court and that the President is trying to change the dynamics of the judiciary with people who are out of the mainstream. Again, I do not believe anything could be further from the truth. There has been a lot of debate on this floor over the last few weeks about these nominees, but let's look at a couple of these nominees to see what it is we are talking about. One of the filibustered nominees is Justice Priscilla Owen. She has served on the Texas Supreme Court since 1995. In 2000, Justice Owen was overwhelmingly reelected to a second term on that court, receiving 84 percent of the public vote. I do not think that is out of the mainstream. During her 2000 election bid, every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her. Before joining the supreme court, she was a partner with a well- respected Texas law firm, having practiced law for 17 years. Justice Owen has significant bipartisan support in Texas, including three former Democratic judges on the Texas Supreme Court and a bipartisan group of 15 past presidents of the State bar of Texas. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her philosophy, one cannot argue that she is not mainstream. In fact, a bipartisan group of 15 former presidents of the State bar of Texas--that bipartisan group about which I talked--states: Although we profess different party affiliations and span the spectrum of legal and policy issues, we stand united in affirming that Justice Owen is a truly unique and outstanding candidate to appointment to the Fifth Circuit [Court of Appeals]. They go on to say she has all the qualities to be a good independent judge. Another who is being attacked is the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown, a nominee from the Supreme Court of California to be on the District of Columbia Circuit Court. In her 9 years on the California Supreme Court, Justice Brown has earned the reputation of being a brilliant and a fair justice who rules on the law. Her nomination has received broad support from across the political spectrum, and she also stood for reelection in the California judicial system where she received 76 percent of the public vote in California the last time she was on the ballot, which belies the notion that she could be out of the mainstream. She has dedicated over 25 years of her legal career to public service and she, too, is supported by a broad array of bipartisan jurists and legal scholars in her State. Let me talk about one more, a nominee from my State, the State of Idaho, William Myers, who has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Bill Myers is a former Solicitor of the Department of Interior and is a highly respected attorney who has extensive experience in the fields of natural resources, public lands, and environmental law. He actually was confirmed by this Senate by unanimous consent when he was confirmed to serve as Solicitor of the Department of Interior. Before coming to the Department of Interior, he practiced at one of the most respected law firms in the Rocky Mountain region, and he has a rich history of service in public offices. He is a very avid outdoorsman and conservationist and has himself wide support from bipartisan interests. In fact, the former Democratic Governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus, indicated he is one who deserves our support, has the integrity, judicial temperament, and experience to be a good judge. Former Democratic Wyoming Governor Mike Sullivan, who also served as U.S. Ambassador to Ireland under the Clinton administration, endorsed Mr. Myers, saying he is ``a thoughtful, well-grounded attorney who has reflected by his career achievements a commitment to excellence.'' My point in reviewing these three candidates, because my time is limited today, is to show that although there is an argument that the President is trying to submit candidates who are not in the mainstream, the argument does not fit the facts. What is happening is President Bush is being denied the opportunity for even a vote on his nominees to be the judges on the various circuit courts of this country. I think we ought to come back to the Constitution and to the initial question which I pose: What does the Constitution of the United States contemplate in terms of how the Senate should operate when it fills its role as providing advice and consent in the nomination and appointment of judges? I think it is very important to note that what we are debating is not the elimination of the filibuster. We have an Executive Calendar and a legislative calendar in the Senate, and the proposal is to address the manner in which filibusters are utilized only on a portion of the Executive calendar. The Executive calendar is that part of our business in which the Senate deals under the Constitution with the executive business of the President with the Senate. We are suggesting our rules should contemplate that when the Constitution gives the President business to conduct with the Senate and says the Senate should give its advice and consent on the President's nominations, the Senate's rules should not prohibit the President from getting a vote. All we are asking, not that these nominations be all unanimously approved or automatically accepted, is the President get a vote up or down on his nominees. It is my hope we will not have to get to the point where on the Senate floor we have a protracted and bitter battle. We have an opportunity to discuss these matters among ourselves and try to do what the American people expect of us, and that is to bring more comity to the Senate in our individual relations among each other. I believe there is room for finding a compromise that can resolve this issue in a way that will bring dignity and respect to the Senate and will enable us to fulfill the spirit of what the Constitution contemplates when it says the Senate should provide its advice and consent to the nominations of the President. Mr. President, I thank you for my time, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in the 1950s and 1960s, this country was in the midst of a cold war and arms race, a race to perfect the hydrogen bomb. To win the race, nuclear weapons technology was developed using above ground testing in Idaho's neighbor to the south, Nevada. During these tests, Idahoans recount going outside in the evenings to look at the beautiful sunsets caused by the testing. Unfortunately and unbeknown to them, these skies were filled with dangerous radiation that very much elevated their exposure and subsequent risk of developing cancer. I will not debate whether government authorities adequately knew the extent of the long-term dangers to radiation exposure. However, after a long and protracted discussion in this very chamber, Congress did recognize that what had occurred during this time of nuclear testing and rightly came forward providing for compensation through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA). This bill said that if you lived in certain counties in certain States during a certain period of time and had specified diseases, you were eligible for compensation. It is now time to review that program and make it work for everyone who may have become ill because of radiation fall-out exposure. The criteria established in the Act were driven by limited scientific knowledge and political expediency. This was recognized in 1999, when a group of Senators, led by Senator Hatch, amended RECA to include additional counties in Arizona. During the floor debate at the time, Senator Hatch said, ``Through advances in science, we now know so much more about the effects of radiation than we did in the late 1950s and 1960s. Our current state of scientific knowledge allows us to pinpoint with more accuracy which diseases are reasonably believed to be related to radiation exposure, and that is what necessitated the legislation we are considering today.'' But the truth is even more encompassing than a few more counties. According to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, a report commissioned by Congress, radiation fall-out didn't know any arbitrary geographic boundaries. It didn't stop because it crossed a State or county line. The NAS report, released last month, clearly demonstrated that we continue to be wide of the mark in who is eligible for compensation and that is why I am introducing legislation today to bring RECA back on course. Information used to establish who would be eligible for compensation failed to recognize that four counties in Idaho ranked in the top five in having the highest per capita thyroid dosage of radiation in the nation, more than any county currently recognized by RECA for eligibility. This clear inequity must be rectified; Idaho has a documented history of high cancer rates in people who lived in these areas during testing. At this time I would like to thank people like Sheri Garmon, Kathy Skippen, Tona Henderson, and so many others who have spent time and energy on this issue. Some like Sheri are fighting multiple cancers and yet have taken the time to pursue their belief that they to deserved to be eligible for the RECA program. The NAS report recognizes that the RECA program needs revamping, but Idahoans deserve equal treatment with those in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada now. They should not have to wait while Congress comes up with a better way to administer this program. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will extend the present program to cover the full State of Idaho. And I am encouraging my colleagues to work with me on making the entire RECA program more comprehensive for the future. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in the 1950s and 1960s, this country was in the midst of a cold war and arms race, a race to perfect the hydrogen bomb. To win the race, nuclear weapons technology was developed using above ground testing in Idaho's neighbor to the south, Nevada. During these tests, Idahoans recount going outside in the evenings to look at the beautiful sunsets caused by the testing. Unfortunately and unbeknown to them, these skies were filled with dangerous radiation that very much elevated their exposure and subsequent risk of developing cancer. I will not debate whether government authorities adequately knew the extent of the long-term dangers to radiation exposure. However, after a long and protracted discussion in this very chamber, Congress did recognize that what had occurred during this time of nuclear testing and rightly came forward providing for compensation through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA). This bill said that if you lived in certain counties in certain States during a certain period of time and had specified diseases, you were eligible for compensation. It is now time to review that program and make it work for everyone who may have become ill because of radiation fall-out exposure. The criteria established in the Act were driven by limited scientific knowledge and political expediency. This was recognized in 1999, when a group of Senators, led by Senator Hatch, amended RECA to include additional counties in Arizona. During the floor debate at the time, Senator Hatch said, ``Through advances in science, we now know so much more about the effects of radiation than we did in the late 1950s and 1960s. Our current state of scientific knowledge allows us to pinpoint with more accuracy which diseases are reasonably believed to be related to radiation exposure, and that is what necessitated the legislation we are considering today.'' But the truth is even more encompassing than a few more counties. According to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, a report commissioned by Congress, radiation fall-out didn't know any arbitrary geographic boundaries. It didn't stop because it crossed a State or county line. The NAS report, released last month, clearly demonstrated that we continue to be wide of the mark in who is eligible for compensation and that is why I am introducing legislation today to bring RECA back on course. Information used to establish who would be eligible for compensation failed to recognize that four counties in Idaho ranked in the top five in having the highest per capita thyroid dosage of radiation in the nation, more than any county currently recognized by RECA for eligibility. This clear inequity must be rectified; Idaho has a documented history of high cancer rates in people who lived in these areas during testing. At this time I would like to thank people like Sheri Garmon, Kathy Skippen, Tona Henderson, and so many others who have spent time and energy on this issue. Some like Sheri are fighting multiple cancers and yet have taken the time to pursue their belief that they to deserved to be eligible for the RECA program. The NAS report recognizes that the RECA program needs revamping, but Idahoans deserve equal treatment with those in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada now. They should not have to wait while Congress comes up with a better way to administer this program. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will extend the present program to cover the full State of Idaho. And I am encouraging my colleagues to work with me on making the entire RECA program more comprehensive for the future. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, as Members of Congress, we have the unique opportunity to participate in special exchange programs in which talented individuals from other branches of government can work temporarily in our offices as legislative fellows or detailees. These initiatives promote efficiency in the business of government by developing mutually beneficial relationships between the executive and legislative branches of government. As Members, we have the opportunity to meet these experts and benefit from their insight, knowledge and experience. One such expert in my office just celebrated 26 years of service to the USDA Forest Service. Kenneth Karkula is currently serving a 1-year fellowship in my office through the Brookings Institute. Building on his extensive experience, he has made invaluable contributions to several issues important to Idaho in the area of natural resources, the environment and energy. In the short time since his arrival, he has become an invaluable asset to my staff, filling in during recent permanent staff vacancies and being willing to do whatever is asked of him. Ken is on detail from his position as National Concessions Program Manager for the Forest Service. His public service career started when he fought wildland fires in the late 1970s to the mid-1980s. He then served as a District Resource Staff Officer in Arizona and New Mexico and, in 1992, moved to the position of Forest Recreation Staff Officer in Lake Tahoe, CA. In 1996, he took his current position at the USDA Forest Service Headquarters, a tremendous culmination of many hard- working years. Ken's knowledge of U.S. environmental and Federal land management policies, coupled with his experience in on-the-ground implementation of these policies over the years, gives him a unique and critical perspective of Federal land management issues that benefit me as I help explore updating and enhancing decades-old environmental policies and practices. I congratulate Ken on his many years of successful work and dedication to the American public.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, on May 3, 2005, the Benewah Medical and Wellness Center operated by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho will be presented with the 2005 Johnson & Johnson Community Health Care Leadership Award. This award is presented to one facility nationwide that has set itself apart from others in quality and innovation in community health care. The center has distinguished itself over the years in superior service to the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the community of Plummer, ID, and the medically underserved and indigent in the region. Theirs is a story of successful partnership and innovation over the course of many years. Fifteen years ago, the center collaborated with the city of Plummer and greatly expanded the scope and reach of its service. In addition to acute and preventive health care found at other medical centers, the many programs offered by the center make it a truly comprehensive care institution. These programs include diabetes and cardiovascular disease prevention and education and afterschool and mentoring programs for youth. Furthermore, the center has responded to the cultural sensitivities of the community by employing Native and non-Native staff members. Staff diversity increases the effectiveness of any healthcare institution, a fact which the center has recognized and incorporated into their operating procedures. In January 2004, I had the opportunity to visit the center and was impressed at the level of technology this collaborative effort had been able to bring to this rural community. I commend the Benewah Medical and Wellness Center on its tremendous achievement in the overall community healthcare and wellness. I look forward to hearing of future successes.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, many times over the past few years that our military men and women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have heard the accounts of combat, injury and death. Sometimes, we can lose sight of the fact that there are people here at home who put their lives on the line every day in the execution of their law enforcement duties. In September 2003, Randy White, a courageous police officer and 16-year veteran of the Minidoka County Sheriff's Office put his life on the line to protect innocent bystanders and fellow officers from injury and death. In the course of apprehending a fugitive from an Idaho bank robbery in Jackpot, NV, Randy sustained gunshots to his abdomen and legs, one of which was at point-blank range. He still suffers from these injuries, but returned to work very shortly following his harrowing experience and has not allowed the extent of his injuries to derail his work and activities. Randy and his wife SunDee have four children, Jared, Jordan, Michelle and Dalen. Randy is active in the LDS church in Rupert, ID, serving as high priest group leader. He has devoted many years to the Boy Scouts, first serving as a Cub Scout Master for 10 years and then a Scout Master for 8. He now holds the position of Scout Committee Chairman. A third generation Idahoan, Randy spent 10 years on active duty with the Navy and 19 years in the Navy Reserves. His active duty time included a tour in Vietnam. Along with his devotion to his family and dedication to his job and community, he has retained his sense of humor, even in the recent trauma he experienced. He said this when asked about the shooting, ``I spent two years in Vietnam and was shot at many times but never hit. I came back to sleepy Idaho and rural Nevada and got shot three times!'' Randy is a courageous, hard-working father, husband and community leader. I wish him well as he continues his recovery, and congratulate him on his selection to be the new Rupert Chief of Police. Today, he is being awarded the FBI Shield of Bravery and Star Award in Rupert, ID. I am honored to recognize Randy's bravery and courage today in the United States Senate, as well as the bravery and courage of all other Americans in law enforcement across our country. Randy embodies the spirit of the great State of Idaho. We are all extremely fortunate that individuals like this exceptional man we honor today protect our freedom here at home.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, on April 6, 2005, I was unable to cast a vote on amendment No. 286 to S. 600. This was due to an unavoidable medical procedure that requires me to commute daily to Baltimore. Had I been there, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a longtime staff member who is moving onto a new and exciting work challenge. Arlen Lancaster has been a valued member of my staff since the start of my first term in the Senate in 1999. He is leaving my staff to become the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Arlen joined my staff as a legislative correspondent and worked his way through two promotions. He now serves as senior policy adviser, covering agriculture, conservation, rural development, energy and the Idaho National Laboratory, natural resources and public lands, defense as well as serving as the staff director of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization. Arlen was instrumental in the work that I have done regarding the conservation title in the 2002 farm bill and shepherding the historic Healthy Forest Restoration Act through Congress. While Arlen's family hails from the Burley area in my home State of Idaho, he lived in many areas due to his father's work with the U.S. Air Force. He attended high school and college in Utah, graduating with a political science degree from the University of Utah. He is definitely a Westerner at heart and his work for me has benefited many in Idaho. On a personal note, Arlen was great to work with. He is decisive, insightful and innovative. His easy-going personality and sense of humor permeated all that he did in his public service for the people of Idaho and the United States. He provided a certain spark to my office. In fact, he sparked so much with another LA that they will be getting married this summer and Arlen and Staci have my best wishes for a long, happy life together. I am excited by Arlen's new challenge at USDA and know he is well up to the task. Although I won't have the same opportunity to work with him on a daily basis, I look forward to our new working relationship and Arlen's continuing successes. His extensive knowledge of agriculture, natural resources and other policy issues will serve Arlen well in his new capacity.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Boise State University's outstanding debate and speech team, the Talkin' Broncos, who captured the national title at the Biennial Pi Kappa Delta National Tournament in St. Louis on March 20. The open tournament is the Nation's oldest and largest team competition among 4-year schools with forensics programs. More than 470 competitors representing 72 schools and 29 States participated in the event. The 14-member championship team also brought home an impressive 22 individual awards. Many in this Chamber appreciate the importance of speech and debate in the business of government. Forensic skills translate into effective communication, and not just in politics. These young women and men have developed techniques that will serve them throughout their lives, no matter what career they decide to pursue. They have demonstrated exceptional oratory capabilities and the quick and incisive thinking needed to communicate ideas and persuade others of the merits of their opinions in an expeditious manner. I congratulate all the students on the team as well as their coaches and head coach Marty Most. I would especially like to recognize John Petty, national champion in the broadcast journalism division; and Lacey Rammell-O'Brien and Nancy Henke for their recognition as two of only nine All-Americans. Over the years, Boise State has firmly established itself as a national force for forensics, and the fact that most of the students on the team are from Idaho high schools is a fine testament to the strength of the secondary academic programs in my home state. This national title is especially noteworthy, and I am proud to honor Boise State University's tremendous achievement in the United States Senate today.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I will yield.

Mr. CRAPO. Reclaiming my time, I stand corrected on that. This will not be the first time, even in recent months, that I have disagreed with the SEC. Although I understand that your letter does speak for the SEC, the fact is, there is one other point I want to make. That is, as is the case with a number of the amendments we have dealt with in debate over the bankruptcy bill, which we have been trying to move forward for 8-plus years, we face a situation in which we are trying to keep this bankruptcy bill clean and not have amendments that are objectionable to the House included in it so that we again run into the problem of not being able to move the legislation. This is one of those amendments. I am confident and I have an understanding that this is one of the amendments the House would not allow and would cause us to then have to go into conference and bring down the bill. The bottom line is, it is bad policy. We have bad policy in current law. The bill seeks to create the flexibility that will allow a judicial determination as to the best and most highly qualified and disinterested investment bank advice for companies involved in bankruptcy. We should not change the underlying bill by substituting a rigid 5-year ban prohibiting many companies that are in the best position possible to do the best good for the company that needs their help at this point from being able to serve. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO. I stand corrected on that.

Mr. CRAPO. And he responded on behalf of the commission?

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I stand to speak in opposition to the pending amendment. The pending amendment has been discussed as if it were seeking to stop investment banking interests who are involved in working with companies that face bankruptcy from continuing some kind of fraud or inappropriate conduct that helped to lead to the bankruptcy by prohibiting them from serving as investment bankers or investment advisers following the bankruptcy proceedings or during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings. The fact is, however, section 414 of the bankruptcy bill and of the bankruptcy law does not eliminate the disinterested test for investment banks. Let me explain the way the law works at this point. For whatever reason, when our current bankruptcy laws were put into place, a complete bar was put in place, so when a company goes into bankruptcy, its investment bankers cannot then function on behalf of the company. They cannot be appointed by the judge to continue to work as the company that works out its bankruptcy difficulties, whether it be in some kind of an ongoing bankruptcy proceeding or in a chapter 7 proceeding. Therefore, the disinterested test simply never applied because there was never any opportunity for an investment bank to serve in this role if it had had any relationship whatsoever to the company going into bankruptcy. That posed a couple very serious problems. The first one is that investment banks that have no current relationship with the company and are possibly best suited to help them through their financial difficulties are conflicted due to having some minor role in the underwriting or some underwriting relating to the company years and years and years ago. That is under current law. What this bankruptcy reform we are trying to put through is seeking to do is to address that problem. Similarly, investment banks that are most familiar with the issues facing a distressed company and are actually working with that company in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy are then compelled to walk away from their clients in their biggest hour of need if bankruptcy becomes necessary and the company has to make the bankruptcy filings. That is what this legislation that is being proposed is seeking to address. The amendment would strike that and, instead of having a perpetual ban, would have a 5-year ban. Now, admittedly, the 5-year ban would solve one problem because it would make it so a company that 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago was involved in an underwriting would not be disqualified, but it still leaves disqualified all of the investment banks that may have been involved even in a bundled underwriting or in some effort to help this company in its financial dealings over the last 5 years prior to bankruptcy. It eliminates those investment banks, their expertise, and their knowledge of the failing company, from consideration in helping that company as it seeks to work through a bankruptcy. Let me make it very clear: The proposed change in the statute does not eliminate the disinterested test. In other words, a question was posed a moment ago on the floor as to whether, in the case of Enron, an investment bank that had been involved in an underwriting for Enron could then have been appointed by the court, under the change in the law proposed here, to continue working with Enron after it went into bankruptcy proceedings. And the answer that was given on the floor was, yes, that is a possibility. Well, first of all, the question assumes that any investment bank that had been involved with Enron was somehow involved in fraud because Enron was involved in fraud. We do not necessarily know that. But that gets to the point of what the bill we are proposing is seeking to do. The bill maintains current bankruptcy law requirements that if an investment bank is to be appointed by the court to work with the bankrupt company, the court must make a determination that this investment bank is disinterested, that it passes the disinterested test. I would presume that if there were a participant in fraud, the court would not consider that to pass the disinterested test. But the key point here is that what the proposal in the underlying bill seeks to accomplish is to have a judge take evidence, evaluate the issue, and make the determination of which investment bank is the best suited, passing a disinterested test, to help this company as it seeks to work through the bankruptcy issues. And there will be many cases when the best suited financial advisers are those who have a history of working with the company, of knowing the company's business, and of knowing the company's financial dealings, and being able to work with them. In fact, in many cases, I would assume it might be a financial adviser, an investment bank that has been working with the company for the last 3 or 4 years to help them try to work through their problems, and for some reason, with what I consider to be a cookie-cutter solution being proposed by this amendment, they would be disqualified simply because they tried to help or were hired to help beforehand. In fact, what we see here in this amendment is a chilling impact on companies going out and seeking investment bank advice before bankruptcy, if they know that bankruptcy is a possible outcome they may face, because they have a choice: Do we seek the best competent investment banking advice we can get before the bankruptcy, knowing that the bankruptcy law will prohibit us from ever having that advice if we do end up having to file or do they say: ``We may have to file and, therefore, we will seek less competent advice or our second alternative so we can have our first alternative when we file bankruptcy''? Why put companies into that kind of a complex problem? Section 414 would subject investment banks to the same disinterested test as other professionals. This is important to know. A company's legal advisers are not subjected to an automatic ban; they are subjected to a disinterested test. A company's accounting advisers are not subjected to an automatic ban; they are subjected to a disinterested test. And yet the effort here seems to say that for some reason we do not want to let the investment bank advisers be subjected to the same disinterested test. Instead, we want to presume that they are guilty of some inappropriate conduct because the company has not financially made it, and ban them from being able to work with the company once a bankruptcy filing takes place. It is another one of those one-size-fits-all cookie cutter solutions that is coming from Washington, DC that is telling every bankruptcy judge across the country that they have no alternative in terms of their choice of who can be the investment bank advisers and supporters for a company that goes into bankruptcy, if there is any connection in the last 5 years between that investment bank and the company that had to file. Bankruptcy courts currently review disinterestedness for all professionals, and 414 would allow judges the same discretion with investment banks as they have for attorneys and accountants. The current law has created a market, frankly, in which a small club of restructuring boutiques dominates the market for restructuring services in bankruptcy. In other words, they realize that if they even get close to a company before bankruptcy, then they won't be able to serve as a part of the restructuring effort for that company coming out of bankruptcy. So this sort of boutique business has developed where the only alternatives the judge has to turn to are those companies that specifically don't help until after the bankruptcy filing. That is the issue we need to address. Do we want to create a system of investment bank advice for companies that are facing financial difficulties in which those companies have to make a choice as to who they will contact for support before the bankruptcy filing, knowing that whoever they choose to help them in their investment banking will be automatically prohibited from helping them if they do end up having to go into a bankruptcy? Professionals are required to perform a firmwide review and disclose all actual and potential conflicts in their application to the court to be retained by the debtor. All parties in interest, including debtholders and shareholders, have the opportunity to make their position known before the judge. Another important point is, somewhere in the debate that has been going on today, we heard: The judge may not know; the judge may make a mistake; the judge may not be aware of all the facts; it is going to be very expensive for the judge to have to go through and look at these investment banks to be sure that he knows whether they are culpable or whether they are simply competent investment advisors. The fact is, the costs that are being put onto the system now by these blanket bans on investment banks are generating more costs to the restructuring process than any cost that could be generated by having the judge make a disinterested analysis. But even if the judge somehow made a mistake, even if we want to hypothesize that judges are going to make mistakes and bad actors might be allowed to be an investment bank adviser or participant in a bankruptcy, any time information becomes available to make it evident that the disinterested test was not satisfied, the judge can change that ruling and terminate the professional's engagement. It seems to me what we need to do in our bankruptcy laws is to promote more flexibility. We need to give opportunities for all investment banks to participate with those companies in our economy, whether they be strong or facing financial difficulties, and help them to the maximum of their abilities. And if it turns out some of those companies end up having to make a bankruptcy filing, then it is important that we protect the flexibility for the bankruptcy judge to select the most qualified investment bank support to work out that bankruptcy circumstance. That is what is in the best interest of our shareholders, in the best interest of our economy, and in the best interest of the debtor and the creditors. We must make certain that we don't allow one more very rigid Federal standard to continue to create this kind of difficulty in the bankruptcy process. Two other points. First, all Senators have received a copy of this letter. There is a letter that was sent out which was signed by those in the industry who are involved in this, who very strongly indicate that the reform and the flexibility this bankruptcy proposal promotes should be supported. That includes the American Bankers Association, the Bond Market Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Futures Industry Association, and the Securities Industry Association. Frankly, although I know Chairman Donaldson has been quoted here, I am not aware that the SEC itself has ever taken a position on this issue. If that is the case, I stand corrected.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the National Guard, to mark its 368th birthday on December 13. The National Guard was founded in 1636 and has answered the call to protect this great Nation in the face of every conflict. It was formed even before the birth of America and continues to serve as a safeguard against all enemies and oppressors. The Guard is now a force of more than 450,000 men and women strong, proudly bearing the seal of American dreams. More than 95,000 of those are serving overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia, protecting America on foreign soil. As some of the Nation's finest, they do not only protect us abroad but do the same here at home, dependably defending us against foreign threats and terrorists. However, protecting the American people is only part of the heroic contributions the Guard provides us. Those brave souls also serve as rescuers, reaching out to those who are victims of natural disaster, and supporting our people in neighborhoods and communities in times of desperation and need. From coast to coast and around the world, all humanity can count on these valiant Americans. Each of us owes a great debt of gratitude to every member of the National Guard, from the past and the present, for their sacrifice and dedication to protecting America's cherished freedoms and democracy. It is wonderful that we can honor the National Guard on its birthday and remember its significance to the people.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge a new beginning with significance not only for the State of Idaho, but for the entire Nation. I am speaking of the February 1, 2005, formal launch of the new Idaho National Laboratory. At the direction of the administration, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and the Argonne National Laboratory-West, two esteemed research facilities that have served this country so well for over 55 years, are being combined to pursue even greater research and development heights as a single, cohesive enterprise. The new laboratory in Idaho has an unmatched foundation on which to pursue its Department of Energy-assigned vision of international nuclear leadership for the 21st century, compelling contributions in national and homeland security technology development, and execution of a broad supporting science and technology portfolio. Idaho is the place where the first usable amount of electricity from nuclear energy was generated. It is where the propulsion system for the first nuclear-powered submarine was developed. And it is where 52 mostly first-of-their-kind, nuclear reactors were designed and constructed. Looking ahead, it is clearly a place well-qualified to implement the technology-based components of the national energy policy our Nation needs and that I hope this body will act on this year. The new Idaho National Laboratory is being managed by a team that draws expertise from companies and academic institutions across the Nation. The Battelle Energy Alliance is led by Battelle Memorial Institute of Ohio. Its partners include BWX Technologies of Virginia, Washington Group International of Idaho, the Electric Power Research Institute of California and a Massachusetts Institute of Technology led national consortium of universities including North Carolina State University, Ohio State University, Oregon State University, the University of New Mexico, and Idaho's three research universities-- Boise State University, Idaho State University, and the University of Idaho. The competition for managing the lab brought out the highest caliber of teams. With the Battelle Energy Alliance, we have a truly extraordinary national team, committed to collaborating broadly to ensure our collective interests in energy security, homeland security and economic security are well served by the new Idaho National Laboratory.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I would also like to join my colleagues in a colloquy on this matter.

Mr. CRAPO. Specifically, the problem remains that the market is grossly distorted by Canadian unfair trade practices. Absent termination of or an offset to the unfair practices, the U.S. timber industry will be severely impacted by subsidized and dumped Canadian imports. We in the Congress have been assured that those responsible in the administration will not allow this further injury to our industry occur. A solution can be either border measures imposed by the United States or Canadian border measures agreed to with the United States pending adequate Canadian timber policy reforms. The Bush administration has concluded that the November 2004 determination of the International Trade Commission that Canadian imports threaten the U.S. industry with injury--the ``Section 129'' determination--represents an independent basis authorizing and necessitating retention of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders. The United States has faith in winning the NAFTA Extraordinary Challenge Committee proceeding on the injury issue, but even a negative outcome before the committee would not be the end of the matter. The Bush administration has concluded that duty deposits, amounting to approximately $3 billion and growing daily, cannot and will not be returned absent a negotiated settlement between the Canadian and U.S. Governments. The panels can provide prospective but not retroactive relief. In any event, these funds are rightly due under U.S. law to the injured domestic timber industry. If there is a negotiated solution, the funds can be apportioned fairly as part of the settlement. There is zero likelihood that the countervailing duty, antisubsidy, order will disappear absent settlement of the lumber subsidy and dumping issues, no matter how often a NAFTA panel tries to achieve this outcome. The U.S. right to challenge Canadian log export restrictions at the WTO is clear under the WTO, and Canada is clearly in violation of its WTO obligations. I understand that the Bush administration is evaluating this issue. I also understand that the U.S. timber industry intends to bring a constitutional challenge to NAFTA dispute settlement if the lumber dumping issue is not resolved. The future of U.S. sawmills and millworkers cannot be allowed to be ruined by outlandish decisionmaking by NAFTA dispute panels and a panelist's service with an obvious, undisclosed conflict of interest.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, after years of faithful service and dedication to his work at Argonne National Lab, a friend and respected Idahoan, John Sackett, is retiring to pursue a quieter life with his family. John served in a number of positions in the Lab over the past 34 years, the most recent being director or Argonne National Lab West located at Idaho National Environment and Engineering Lab in southeast Idaho. He has earned international recognition and respect for his work in the areas of nuclear safety and advanced reactor design. I have had the privilege of working with John the entire time I have served in Congress. Over the past 12 years, I have witnessed his steady leadership, commitment to the goals of the Lab and DOE. John and I share a fervent belief in the role of nuclear energy and research in economic, technological, security and energy sectors. Perhaps what is most remarkable is that despite the tremendous demands of his work at Argonne, he finds the time to give back to his community, serving on numerous medical and economic boards and councils in eastern Idaho as well as on the advisory boards of both the University of Idaho and Idaho State University. Argonne National Lab's loss is certainly John's family's gain, as well as the gain of any organization in which he decides to invest his retirement energy. He has my best wishes in his retirement.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a civic leader in Idaho who passed away this week at the age of 98. Delbert V. Groberg was so active in community efforts in eastern Idaho that the local newspaper reported ``it would take the best part of a newspaper page to list'' his accomplishments. But I knew him best as a close family friend; the father of one of my best friends, Dr. George Groberg; and a man who held a place of trust and honor in the community for decades. Delbert and his late wife, Jennie Holbrooke, were married nearly 74 years and are the parents of eleven children, all born and reared in Idaho Falls. His family was his proudest accomplishment, and he leaves behind Mary Jane, Richard who is currently serving an LDS mission in Finland, Joseph, Lewis, George, Julia, John, David, Delbert, Elizabeth, and Gloria, along with 64 grandchildren, 116 great-grandchildren and one great-great-grandchild. What a legacy he has fostered! His business accomplishments began in 1929 in real estate when he founded the D. V. Groberg Company in Idaho Falls. The company expanded into real estate sales, appraisals, property management and development, building subdivisions throughout the area. He served as the president of the Idaho Falls Real Estate Board and of the Idaho Real Estate Association. He was also the chairman of the Idaho Real Estate Commission and vice-president of the National Association of Realtors. Not surprisingly, he was selected as the Idaho Realtor of the Year. He was the first in southern Idaho to receive the professional designation from the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, which awarded him a lifetime membership. He was the founding president of its southern Idaho chapter. His interest in real estate led to an achievement that is a landmark in Idaho Falls--the siting and building of an LDS temple on the banks of the Snake River. He later served as president of the Idaho Falls LDS Temple from 1975 to 1980 and authored a book about the temple, ``The Idaho Falls Temple: The First LDS Temple in Idaho.'' His service to his religion took many forms as well. He served as a bishop of the Idaho Falls Third Ward, a member of the South Idaho Falls Stake high council, and a stake patriarch. He set an example of Christian living throughout his life. Delbert's business accomplishments moved outside of real estate into banking and broadcasting. He was a director and vice president of the Bank of Commerce and founded KID Broadcasting Corporation. He and his wife Jennie were honored pioneers of the Bonneville County Historical Society. He was also inducted into the Idaho Hall of Fame. His civic positions included president or chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis Club, the Selective Service Board, the United Way, and the Bonneville Bicentennial Commission. He was given the Idaho 7th District Bar Association Liberty Bell Award, the BYU Alumni Service to Family Award, and the Presidential Citation Award from Brigham Young University. While I have presented a long list of accomplishments, what I want to share with you most is that Delbert V. Groberg was a man of great integrity. I learned much from him in my childhood, lessons that continue to serve me well today. He was thoughtful, sensitive, and considerate. He was patriotic and civic-minded. Although his accomplishments are legion, he remained humble and interested. Despite his busy schedule, his children say they never felt neglected. Delbert served his community, his church, and his family and managed to do it all through difficult times in our country's history. His life is an outstanding example for all. He will be missed by his family, his community, and so many whose lives he has touched over nearly a century of living. I was privileged to know him and to have his influence in my life. For that, I will always be grateful.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I commend President Bush on his recent trip to Canada and efforts to build on our strong relations with our neighbor to the north. Canada is our Nation's largest trading partner and one of our closest allies, and this relationship must continue to remain vibrant and strong. As the co-chairman of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, I continue to work with my peers in Canada to do what I can to assist in this effort. Despite certain media coverage to the contrary, many Canadians warmly embrace Americans and the President's policies. I want to share comments made by Senator Jerry Grafstein in the Canadian Senate on the occasion of President Bush's visit. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Speaking as the subcommittee chairman with jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, I concur in the clarifications expressed by my colleagues. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to. The bill (S. 2605), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize an Idahoan of exceptional talent. Many possess remarkable talents, but this individual stands out because he has used his gifts to enrich the lives of others, educate young people, inspire creativity and provide beauty and drama that resides in the music of the heart. Mel Shelton, former Boise High School Band Director, Bose State University, BSU, Director of Bands and Professor of Music Education, member of the Boise Philharmonic, conductor and soloist with the Boise Municipal Band, founder and conductor of the Treasure Valley Concert Band, retired Professor Emeritus, Director of Bands from BSU, and internationally recognized composer has proven to be an exemplary artist, passionate and driven educator and dedicated citizen. Mel has pushed countless students to reach out to the furthest boundaries of their talent and energy. He has exposed young musicians to new places and foreign countries, providing them with experiences that they will be able to draw artistic inspiration from for the rest of their lives. His incredible orchestral and band compositions are interpretations of profound life experiences. His exposure to and friendship with students from the Basque community in Boise, incidentally the largest such community in the nation, inspired him to compose the first Basque music specifically published for concert band media. Some of the most rugged peaks of Idaho, the Grand Tetons, were the inspiration for a piece by the same name. Mel also composed a work in honor of fallen wildland firefighters recently entitled ``Requiem for Wildfire Heroes.'' These and many other of Mel's works have been on ``Required Lists'' for contests and festivals throughout the country, and he has been the well-deserved recipient of many distinguished local, State, and international awards. Mel says, ``Music is a picture painted on a background of silence. It is unique in that it allows our brain to see with our ears and hear with our hearts.'' Mel Shelton transforms the mystery and passion of Idaho and its citizens from the transcendent to the realm of the discernable, unlocking our ability to appreciate Idaho's heritage and beauty. I commend him on his lifelong dedication to music, to Idaho's children, and remarkable accomplishments as a master in his field.