Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructures be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on Thread Act revisited.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, June 3, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. on ``The Child Custody Protection Act: Protecting Parents' Rights and Children's Lives'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. The witness list is attached. Panel I: The Honorable John Ensign, United States Senator [R-NV]. Panel II: Mr. John C. Harrison, Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA; Mr. Peter J. Rubin, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC; and Ms. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis, MN. Panel III: Ms. Joyce Farley, Victim, Dushore, PA; Ms. Crystal Lane, Victim, Dushore, PA; and the Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, St. David's Episcopal Church, Pepperell, MA.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Building room 226. Agenda I. Nominations Henry W. Saad to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit II. Legislation S. 1735, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003 [Hatch, Feinstein, Grassley, Graham, Chambliss, Cornyn, Schumer, Biden]; S. 1635, A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure the integrity of the L-1 visa for intracompany transferees [Chambliss]; S. 1129, Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 [Feinstein, DeWine, Feingold, Kennedy, Leahy, Specter, Edwards, Durbin, Kohl, Schumer]; S. 2013, Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act of 2004 [Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl]; S. 1887, A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient limitation on prescribing drug addiction treatments by medical practitioners in group practices Act of 2003 [Hatch, Levin, Biden]; S. 2363, A bill to review and extend the Boys and Girls Clubs of America Act of 2004 [Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl, Biden]; S. Con. Res. 5, A concurrent resolution expressing the support for the celebration in 2004 of the 150th anniversary of the Grand Excursion of 1854 Act of 2003 [Grassley, Durbin, Kohl, Feingold]; S.J. Res. 4, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States Act of 2003 [Hatch, Feinstein, Sessions, DeWine, Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, Chambliss, Specter]; S. 1700, Advancing Justice though DNA Technology Act of 2003 [Hatch, Leahy, Biden, Specter, DeWine, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Kohl, Edwards];

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Bank Secrecy Act Enforcement.''

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S. 1233, to authorize assistance for the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all first- degree amendments to the Defense authorization bill which are in order from the previous list be filed at the desk no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, June 7.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAPO

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

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Senator for this time. I encourage us to support the efforts to make certain these things will move forward and particularly when we bring this amendment that we were not allowed to bring this morning, we encourage the entire Senate to support it to help make this issue crystal clear to anyone who has lingering doubts.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I want to weigh in on this issue and try to bring clarity to what it comes down to. As has been said by virtually every speaker today, this issue was caused as a result of the outcome of a lawsuit in Idaho with regard to the authority and jurisdiction and prerogatives of the Department of Energy in managing high-level waste as a result of reprocessing. When the court case came down the way it did, it threw into question the manner in which the Department of Energy would proceed with its cleanup operations in three States--Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina. There are people on all sides of that issue. Some say it is clear what they have to do. There are those who say it is unclear. There are those who say we can find clarity if we take some time to work it through between the States and the DOE. The bottom line is there was an issue. As a result of this issue, the question of funding availability for the ongoing cleanup became paramount. It was the DOE's position, as taken by the Office of Management and Budget, that if we didn't have a clear path forward on these cleanups, approximately $350 million that would have been available and was authorized and appropriated for cleanup in these three States would not be available in the next year. So the first urgent hurdle that came up was we had to make clear that the cleanup had to go on while we are trying to resolve these issues. The second issue that came up is, how do we resolve them? In that context, the Senator from South Carolina is exactly correct. Each of the three involved States--Idaho, my State; his State, South Carolina; and the State of Washington--got involved in negotiating with the Department of Energy. In fact, in the beginning, there was some concern from the States, as to whether they were going to be allowed to be engaged in these negotiations, and Senator Craig and I, from Idaho, and the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, made it clear we would take no steps that our States did not authorize and approve. We actually provided the incentive for these negotiations to take place. As we began moving forward, a dynamic developed where it became evident that the State of South Carolina, because of differences in the State of South Carolina's issues, was going to make it through to and reach an agreement with the Department of Energy. This agreement, as has already been indicated, is one supported by the Governor of South Carolina, the attorney general, the applicable environmental regulator, and many others in the State whose input the Senator from South Carolina has brought forth as part of the record. The States of Washington and Idaho, however, were not able to reach an agreement. Then we came forward and this bill came to the floor, and we have now found ourselves here with the State of South Carolina having an agreement, and the States of Idaho and Washington not having an agreement, and the question as to the money. A very important issue that seems to have immediately passed in the debate today is what happened in the beginning of the debate. Today, my amendment and the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, joined in by Senator Craig, were passed with a voice vote. Those amendments did a very critical and important thing. They made it clear the authorized cleanup dollars, the $350 million, were going to largely be able to be made available for continuing operations while we continue to try to work out these negotiations. I think that is a big part of the story today that needs to be made clear, because a big success for the country has been achieved already through those amendments. Secondly, we are now dealing with the question of the South Carolina language. When you boil down the debate today, it comes down to a question we have been focusing on in Idaho. And that is, does the South Carolina language create a precedent or some kind of a pressure which would cause us to have to deal with this issue in the State of Idaho or the State of Washington any differently? The answer to that is simply no. In fact, I think if there is any precedent in what is happening in this dynamic today, it is the opposite, because the State of Idaho, Senator Craig, and I made it very clear to the committee, to the Department of Energy, and to everyone-- and Senator Graham of South Carolina joined us in making it clear-- there would be no language in this bill relating to the State of Idaho unless and until the State of Idaho agreed to such language and Idaho's Senators brought that language forward. That is why we have very clear language in the bill that says the language that deals with South Carolina deals with South Carolina only. Having said that, there still has been a debate promulgated around the country, and it is raging in Idaho with regard to this very issue. Is there any precedential value in the South Carolina language that would cause a threat to any other State, particularly Idaho or Washington? Senator Craig and I strongly believe the answer to that is no, but there is a question about it. Idaho's Governor, Governor Kempthorne, has been quoted on this floor as raising the question. So Senator Craig and I, working with the Senator from South Carolina and other Senators, decided we would make it ironclad clear, if it was not so clear already. This morning, before this whole debate began, I asked unanimous consent to bring a further amendment that would have made it crystal clear, if it is not already crystal clear, that there is no precedential value here. Let me say before I go through what this amendment is, we believe it was crystal clear already in the statutory language, and Senator Graham, Senator Craig, and I and others have made it clear in the record developed in the debate on this bill that there is no precedential impact of this language because each State is dealing with its own circumstances and working out its own solutions with the Department of Energy. Having said that, here is the language, frankly, we were not given unanimous consent to put into the bill this morning. The language would have said: Nothing in this section shall alter or jeopardize the full implementation of the settlement agreement entered into by the United States with the State of Idaho. . . . And then there is a description of that agreement. Or the Hanford Federal facility agreement and consent order, or the Federal facility agreement with the State of Idaho. Furthermore, nothing in this section establishes any precedent or is binding on the States of Idaho, Washington, or any other State for the management, storage, treatment, and disposition of radioactive and hazardous materials. We were stopped this morning from getting unanimous consent--I still do not understand why--we were stopped this morning from getting unanimous consent to put this amendment into the amendment we adopted earlier dealing with the funding stream. That is not going to stop us from moving this language in an amendment and putting it on the bill to make it very clear to anybody who still has any doubt that there is no intention here of creating any kind of precedent or pressure with regard to any other State. I want to make it very clear we have now provided this language to the desk in the form of an amendment. That amendment will immediately follow the action on this vote with regard to the amendment of the Senator from Washington. Presuming that we still have an opportunity because of the vote, we will proceed with this amendment to make it very clear to anybody who has any lingering doubts that this Congress has no intention and this statutory language is not intended to create any precedential pressure or value, whether it be in court or in legislative negotiations, with regard to how Idaho, Washington, or, frankly, any other State will negotiate with the Department of Energy. It should be absolutely ironclad clear already, but Senator Craig and I worked with our Governor, and he is supportive of this effort to resolve this issue, and we are going to make it very clear to the Nation that this debate over whether there is some precedential value here is simply a debate that is contrived to object to allowing South Carolina to reach its own solution. It seems to me as we approach this issue, we must recognize that nothing will happen with regard to the management of radioactive material in the States of Idaho or Washington or, frankly, South Carolina, for that matter, unless and until those States agree. That is why Senator Craig and I have been on this floor advocating States rights and why we will continue to do so. Senator Craig and I have made a very strong, a very clear position to the administration and to this Congress, which is that our Idaho agreement--which, by the way, was entered into in 1995 and ratified by this Congress--will not be weakened or altered or modified, and that no agreement will be reached on these management issues regarding radioactive materials and hazardous waste unless and until the State of Idaho agrees to that solution. Those two principles are hard rock, base positions Senator Craig and I have made very clear. Like I say, if there is any question about what the precedent of these proceedings means, the precedent is that Senator Craig and I will not allow--we will not allow--this Congress to move forward with these kinds of issues.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that it be made in order that I be allowed to amend my amendment in the form of amendments that are at the desk at this time. The purpose of this request is that there has been some question raised in regard to the South Carolina language, as to whether it creates any precedential value in regard to other States which are dealing with radioactive materials and the handling of them. We do not believe there is such a precedential effect and we believe it is very clear there is not, but because some have raised that question, we would like to simply amend the legislation that is before us today to make it perfectly clear there is no precedential effect of this language on any State other than South Carolina. For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to amend my own amendment, which is at the desk, in the form of an amendment which we have presented to the other side.

Mr. CRAPO. That is correct, Mr. President.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 5 minutes taken out of our side of the time that is allocated during this morning's debate to discuss an issue and make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3226.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. On rollcall vote 100, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in a few days, a very special dedication will be held a short distance from here. Thanks to the diligence, commitment, and hard work of many people across the United States, our Nation's capital will officially be the proud home to the long-overdue World War II Memorial. It is definitely a time for celebration--a celebration of freedom, life, and honor, a celebration of the United States of America. Most of all, it is a celebration of all the soldiers and citizens who gave life and limb during the early years of the 1940s. Idaho is home to many World War II veterans. This Memorial Day weekend, those veterans, along with veterans from every State and others who helped at home and abroad, can celebrate a very special Memorial Day. Many fought and many died to defend the United States in a war that ended 59 years ago. Sixteen million served, and 400,000 did not return to families and friends. Each one of these lives increased the value of our citizenship exponentially and immeasurably. This memorial, the design of which was selected after careful review of 400 submissions, stands as a reminder of the sacrifice of many. It is a most profound honor to their memory. Watching the evening news is a sobering reminder of what this memorial stands for. It represents freedom from tyranny, peace and justice for all people, bravery in the face of terror and death, and love for America that surpasses words while challenging complacency. The World War II Memorial has an important role to play in teaching us about the price of freedom. It reminds each one of us that we cannot take our United States citizenship lightly. It calls on us to be vigilant in preserving those freedoms as those who have gone before have done with such conviction and singleness of purpose. Many veterans know all too well the physical and emotional challenges that the current generation of military personnel and their families are facing. Their wisdom, insight, and experience will help those who themselves are brand new veterans. These young men and women face the same challenges that others did over half a century ago. This memorial serves as a reminder of the debt of honor and gratitude we owe all veterans. We have a responsibility to care for them and, in our national leadership roles, we must take steps which do the most to support these brave defenders of our freedom. This memorial represents those who have given life and limb in military service, and it also reminds all Americans of the gift of immeasurable cost--the gift of freedom--that the lives of brave men and women have purchased for all of us. And I can think of no better reason to celebrate.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I today honor D.L. Evans Bank on reaching a tremendous milestone--100 years in business. D.L. Evans bank is a financial institution in the largest sense of that word. It is a significant, established organization with branches solely in my home State of Idaho, and widely recognized for quality, personalized banking services to the community. Today I honor the Evans family and their employees for their long, proud history of financial service to Idahoans and many others. In 1904, D.L. Evans and a group of pioneer businessman met and organized Cassia County's first bank. Despite the floods, fires, droughts, and even grasshoppers that have wreaked havoc on its customers, the bank has survived many tough economic times. As other banks around the country were closing their doors, D.L. Evans Bank was expanding--moving from its one-story frame building to a two-story stone headquarters in the early 1900s. From that original Albion branch, the bank has opened locations in Boise, Burley, Meridian, Ketchum, Jerome, Rupert, and Twin Falls. It is now the second largest community bank head quartered in southern Idaho with $388 million in assets and $345 million in deposits. The Evans family's participation in the Idaho State Government has been no less impressive. The bank's founder, D.L. Evans, served in the Idaho Senate from 1903-1904 and 1923-1924. The current President, John V. Evans Sr., has served in numerous government capacities including as Governor of Idaho, Mayor of Malad City, State Senator and Majority and Minority Leader of the Idaho Senate, and Lieutenant Governor. The Evans family and D.L. Evans Bank have made important contributions to both the private and public sector in Idaho. Congratulations to the employees, friends, and family of D.L. Evans on the centennial anniversary. D.L. Evans is a bank with a proud history, impressive current achievements, and a promising future. I wish the bank and its employees the best as they continue to serve the communities and families of Idaho.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and congratulate an Idaho student who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Camille Schmidt of Pocatello has been named one of the Nation's top youth volunteers by the 2004 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. This honor is conferred on only one high school student and one mid-level student in each State. I applaud Camille's efforts to improve her community. Camille has spent the past 2 years working to restore windows in her school's library that were removed in the early 1980s. When Camille began attending Pocatello High School, she noticed 8-foot-tall indents in the school walls and realized they were once windows. She found yearbooks that contained pictures of the school before the windows were taken out, and was inspired to restore them. She received approval to begin working on the restoration from the superintendent, and met with an architect to discuss the project. So far, Camille has raised more than $10,000 of the needed $15,000 for the project. To raise the necessary funds, she has distributed brochures, spoken at class reunions and student assemblies, contacted the news media, and even obtained a grant. To date, four of the eight windows have been replaced. Next year, the student government and the National Honor Society will take over the project until all of the school's windows are restored. Camille has demonstrated an extraordinary level of commitment and accomplishment and deserves our admiration and respect. She has played an important role in her community and serves as an example to her peers. I join with her family and friends in honoring her commitment to the state of Idaho.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and congratulate an Idaho student who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Jacqueline Sandmeyer of Boise has been named one of the Nation's top youth volunteers by the 2004 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. This honor is conferred on only one high school student and one mid-level student in each State. I applaud Jacqueline's efforts to improve her community. Jacqueline, an eighth-grader at St. Joseph's School, has collected more than 1,000 pounds of food and 200 coats, mittens, and hats for the homeless over the past 4 years. When she was nine, Jacqueline noticed a group of children shivering in the cold outside of a rescue mission. Moved by the experience, Jacqueline packed up her winter clothes for donation, along with her saved-up allowance of $275 to take to the shelter. With the help of her parents, she then placed collection boxes in her school and government buildings. She also solicited donations from her neighbors and appealed to her entire community for help through the news media. Jacqueline summed up my feelings well, when she said, ``I know that no matter what age you are, you can make a difference.'' Jacqueline has demonstrated an extraordinary level of commitment and accomplishment and deserves our admiration and respect. She has played an important role in her community and serves as an example to her peers. I join with her family and friends in honoring her commitment to the State of Idaho.