Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on FAA reauthorization. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11 at 10 a.m. to consider the president's proposed FY 2004 budget for the Department of the Interior. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, at 2:30 p.m. to consider the nomination of Joseph T. Kelliher to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Finance

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on Examination of Proposals for Economic Growth and Job Creation: Incentives for Consumption. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on foreign relations

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a Hearing on the Future of Iraq. Agenda Witnesses: Panel 1: The Honorable Marc I. Grossman, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC., The Honorable Douglas J. Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense, Washington, DC. Panel 2: Colonel Scott R. Feil (Ret.), Executive Director, Role of American Military Power, Arlington, VA. General Anthony Zinni, (Ret.), Former Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command, Washington, DC., Professor Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair for Strategy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for a joint hearing on Patient Access Crisis: The Role of Medical Litigation during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-106.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a joint hearing on ``Patient Access Crisis: The Role of the Medical Litigation'' on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 in Dirksen Room 106 at 2:30 p.m. Witness List Laurie Peel, Raleigh, NC, Linda McDougal, Woodville, Wisconsin, Leanne Dyess, Vicksburg, MS, Jay Angoff, Of Counsel, Roger G. Brown & Associates, Jefferson City, MO, Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance, Austin, TX, Shelby Wilbourn, MD, Physician, on behalf of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Belfast, ME, Lawrence E. Smarr, President, Physician Insurers Association of America, Rockville, MD.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 at 10 a.m. to hold an open hearing and 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 11, 2003, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct its organization meetings and to conduct a hearing on those Senate Committees that have presented budgets above guidelines for the 108th Congress. For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules Committee on 224-6352.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the U.S. Post Office in Bailey, MS, as it celebrates its 100th year of existence. The Bailey Post Office began its service in December of the year 1902, when John A. Bailey was appointed as the first local postmaster by Henry C. Payne, the Postmaster General of the United States. The Bailey Post Office was opened in the already existing structure of the Bailey Grocery and has been serving the Bailey community ever since. Since its inception in 1902, the Bailey Post Office has reliably served the people of the city of Bailey and the surrounding area and currently has two mail routes that cover 700 families in the Bailey community. Such longevity can be attributed to the character and work ethic that Bailey Post Office employees have exhibited over the years, but more than that, it is a tribute to the small town values present in a place such as Bailey. The fact that Leon Bailey, the grandson of the first ever Postmaster General in Bailey, still lives in Bailey speaks volumes about the tightly knit community the people of Bailey enjoy. During the recent centennial celebration, more than 300 members of the community gathered to commemorate the occasion. Such a sense of community is rare in today's world, and as such it should be commended. That is why I felt the need to pay tribute to the current and past workers of the Bailey Post Office as well as the current and past members of the community.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I take this time to express my grief, as well as the grief of all Mississippians, over the loss of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Mississippians feel a strong bond to both the space program and the crew of the Columbia. One reason for this bond is NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center. The Stennis Space Center, which is located in Hancock County, MS, tests every space shuttle's main engine before it is installed for a launch. Also, the Stennis Space Center's remote sensing experts are currently assisting NASA in locating debris from the Columbia. Another reason Mississippians feel closely connected to the Columbia tragedy is that Robert and Barbara Anderson, the parents of LTC Michael Anderson, were both born in Mississippi. While Mr. and Mrs. Anderson now live in Spokane, WA, they still have family members who reside in Madison County, MS. While these ties to the space program and the crew of the Columbia provide Mississippians with a source of great honor and pride, now that tragedy has struck, these ties make the loss of the seven Columbia astronauts that much more personal. The loss of the Columbia crew was truly a national tragedy. While the United States has been blessed with many outstanding natural resources, no one will ever convince me that our most valuable resource is anything other than the outstanding individuals this country produces. Our NASA astronauts are outstanding individuals who represent the best of the best. While I am sure that many here are familiar with the type of outstanding personal achievement that is required to become an astronaut, I would like to take a moment to give a brief synopsis of the accomplishments of the seven crew members of the Columbia shuttle. COL Rick Husband, commander. Rick Husband, 45, was a test pilot in the U.S. Air Force. He received a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from Texas Tech University in 1980 and a master of science degree in mechanical engineering from California State University-Fresno in 1990. Husband had already completed a space mission as the pilot of STS-96 in 1999, on which the first docking with the International Space Station was performed. Rick Husband leaves a wife and two children behind. CDR William C. McCool, pilot. William C. McCool, 41, served as a commander in the U.S. Navy and was also a former test pilot. In 1983, McCool received a bachelor of science degree in applied science from the U.S. Naval Academy, where he graduated second in his class. He later received a master of science degree in computer science from the University of Maryland in 1985 and a master of science degree in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in 1992. This was William McCool's first space flight. He leaves behind a wife and three children. LTC Michael P. Anderson, payload commander. Michael Anderson, 43, was a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force, where he served as an instructor pilot and tactical officer. Anderson received a bachelor of science degree in physics/astronomy from University of Washington in 1981 and a master of science degree in physics from Creighton University in 1990. Selected by NASA in December of 1994, Anderson flew on STS-89 in 1998 and has logged over 211 hours in space. Anderson leaves behind a wife and two daughters. CAPT David M. Brown, mission specialist 1. David Brown, 46, was a captain in the U.S. Navy and served as a naval aviator and flight surgeon. Brown received a bachelor of science degree in biology from the College of William and Mary in 1978 and a doctorate in medicine from Eastern Virginia Medical School in 1982. This was Brown's first space flight. Dr. Kalpana Chawla, mission specialist 2. Kalpana Chawla was an aerospace engineer and an FAA certified flight instructor. She received a bachelor of science degree in aeronautical engineering from India's Punjab Engineering College in 1982, a master of science degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Texas-Arlington in 1984, and a doctorate in aerospace engineering from the University of Colorado-Boulder in 1988. Chawla was the prime robotic arm operator on STS-87 in 1997 and had logged more than 376 hours in space prior to the Columbia flight. Chawla was the first Indian-born woman in space and leaves a husband behind. CDR Laurel Blair Salton Clark, mission specialist 4. Laurel Clark, 41, was a commander in the U.S. Navy and a naval flight surgeon. She received a bachelor of science degree in zoology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1983 and a doctorate in medicine from the same school in 1987. The Columbia flight was Clark's first space flight. She leaves behind a husband and an 8-year-old son. COL Ilan Ramon, payload specialist 1. Ilan Ramon, 48, was a colonel in the Israeli Air Force. Ramon received a bachelor of science degree in electronics and computer engineering from the University of Tel Aviv in 1987. He served as a fighter pilot during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s and was a veteran of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, as well as the 1982 war in Lebanon. The Columbia flight was Ramon's first, and with it he became the first Israeli in space. He leaves behind a wife and four children. As you can see, this group of individuals would stand out in any company, and it is right that the country should mourn their loss. And as the country mourns, it is especially important that we remember the friends and family of the lost astronauts. If just their accomplishments and dedication to their countries can cause whole nations to mourn, I can only imagine the grief of those who knew them personally and lost not only a national hero, but a friend, or spouse, or parent. I can only hope the knowledge that the thoughts and prayers of entire Nations are with them will provide some small comfort. While our Nation grieves deeply for these men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of their countries, we take solace in the fact that we will benefit immeasurably for years to come from their dedication and hard work. The crew of the Columbia surely represented the best of this world. They entered space not just as members of one nationality, race, or religion, but as fellow human beings. The crew members risked and ultimately sacrificed their lives, not for personal gain, but for the advancement of science and the betterment of humankind. It is for these reasons that I want to say thank you to COL Rick Husband, CDR William C. McCool, LTC Michael P. Anderson, CAPT David M. Brown, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, CDR Laurel Blair Salton Clark, COL Ilan Ramon, and all their friends and family who have shared in their sacrifice.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Tennessee Valley Authority has long served as an engine for economic development in my part of the country and has enjoyed widespread support for its efforts to provide power that is needed to fuel the economy and enhance the quality of life of those it serves. It is my desire to assist the TVA in continuing its legacy and carrying out its mission. To provide that assistance, the Congress, the Administration, and the TVA itself must determine whether TVA's policies, practices, and long-term strategies are consistent with the realities of today's marketplace. The TVA is at a crossroads in its illustrious history. The United States taxpayer and the power consumers in the TVA service area have provided the capital necessary to develop, finance, and operate one of the largest, if not the largest, public power systems in history. The TVA is now facing a number of challenges with respect to its existing generating system in the form of environmental compliance, aging and obsolete plants, and the urgent need to provide additional generating capacity to meet the demands of the future. It is my belief that the United States taxpayer is unwilling and unable to continue to bear the financial burden and risks associated with addressing these challenges. The reality of the marketplace for energy and the political imperatives with which we are confronted mandate that any new financing strategies and supplemental sources of capital be considered and utilized by the TVA. Likewise, we need to review and analyze the short- term and long-term financing and risk management strategies employed by the TVA with respect to its almost $26 billion of debt. Last year, we witnessed the results of risky and sometimes corrupt corporate financing and management practices. Although I have no reason to believe that TVA has been involved in any such practices, I believe we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to examine the financing and disclosure practices of the TVA to ensure that their investment is being protected. I note that TVA has utilized short-term financing facilities and derivative securities as hedging and interest rate management techniques. We need to better understand the risks and rewards associated with these strategies. The legislation that I am introducing today would require that the TVA provide the Congress and the Administration with a 10-year business outlook and strategic plan with respect to its development and financing needs, as well as an analysis of its ongoing financing and risk management strategies. During the period in which the TVA is responding to this Congressional mandate, the TVA would be required to cease and desist from incurring new obligations or entering into any arrangements for the development or financing of new, additional, or replacement plant, equipment, or capacity. Likewise, during this period the TVA would be required to gain the concurrence of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Senate and House Committee leaders before undertaking any additional financing or refinancing activities. The legislation specifically provides for the necessary flexibility for the TVA to continue normal operations and fund necessary maintenance activities while complying with this Congressional mandate. I strongly support the TVA and I recognize its importance to the economic health of several States in the southeastern United States, including my own. Indeed, the TVA is a critical component of the infrastructure that supports the economy of the entire United States. It is my desire in introducing this legislation that the TVA be positioned to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Introduction of this legislation is the first step to help the TVA achieve that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Tennessee Valley Authority has long served as an engine for economic development in my part of the country and has enjoyed widespread support for its efforts to provide power that is needed to fuel the economy and enhance the quality of life of those it serves. It is my desire to assist the TVA in continuing its legacy and carrying out its mission. To provide that assistance, the Congress, the Administration, and the TVA itself must determine whether TVA's policies, practices, and long-term strategies are consistent with the realities of today's marketplace. The TVA is at a crossroads in its illustrious history. The United States taxpayer and the power consumers in the TVA service area have provided the capital necessary to develop, finance, and operate one of the largest, if not the largest, public power systems in history. The TVA is now facing a number of challenges with respect to its existing generating system in the form of environmental compliance, aging and obsolete plants, and the urgent need to provide additional generating capacity to meet the demands of the future. It is my belief that the United States taxpayer is unwilling and unable to continue to bear the financial burden and risks associated with addressing these challenges. The reality of the marketplace for energy and the political imperatives with which we are confronted mandate that any new financing strategies and supplemental sources of capital be considered and utilized by the TVA. Likewise, we need to review and analyze the short- term and long-term financing and risk management strategies employed by the TVA with respect to its almost $26 billion of debt. Last year, we witnessed the results of risky and sometimes corrupt corporate financing and management practices. Although I have no reason to believe that TVA has been involved in any such practices, I believe we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to examine the financing and disclosure practices of the TVA to ensure that their investment is being protected. I note that TVA has utilized short-term financing facilities and derivative securities as hedging and interest rate management techniques. We need to better understand the risks and rewards associated with these strategies. The legislation that I am introducing today would require that the TVA provide the Congress and the Administration with a 10-year business outlook and strategic plan with respect to its development and financing needs, as well as an analysis of its ongoing financing and risk management strategies. During the period in which the TVA is responding to this Congressional mandate, the TVA would be required to cease and desist from incurring new obligations or entering into any arrangements for the development or financing of new, additional, or replacement plant, equipment, or capacity. Likewise, during this period the TVA would be required to gain the concurrence of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Senate and House Committee leaders before undertaking any additional financing or refinancing activities. The legislation specifically provides for the necessary flexibility for the TVA to continue normal operations and fund necessary maintenance activities while complying with this Congressional mandate. I strongly support the TVA and I recognize its importance to the economic health of several States in the southeastern United States, including my own. Indeed, the TVA is a critical component of the infrastructure that supports the economy of the entire United States. It is my desire in introducing this legislation that the TVA be positioned to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Introduction of this legislation is the first step to help the TVA achieve that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to say thank you to the distinguished assistant majority leader for his comments about my good friend and our loyal servant over so many years, both in the House and in the Senate, in the person of Dave Hoppe. The Senator from Kentucky has had a chance to watch him in our leadership meetings, to hear him and work with him, and get to know him as a human being. He is quite a guy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a resume of Dave Hoppe's accomplishments. It is a very interesting record of not only achievement, but sacrifice for his country as well.

Mr. LOTT. Also, I want to call attention to a 1997 USA Today article on Dave Hoppe which correctly called Dave the critical architect behind getting the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education (IDEA) Act passed in 1997. The article recounts how much that act meant personally to Dave and his family, and particularly to his youngest son, who will benefit from this law in large part because he was also an inspiration for it. Gregory Hoppe is a special person, and the USA Today article, which Senator McConnell has already asked to be printed into the Record, recounts Gregory and Dave's and their family's remarkable story. First, let me just comment on some interesting facts about Dave. While Dave Hoppe has worked for me off and on for over 27 years in the House and the Senate, he is not from Mississippi as you might expect. No, he is from Baraboo, WI, which happens to be the birthplace of the Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus and we have never let Dave forget that over the years. He is a graduate of Notre Dame, class of 1973, which has made for some interesting kidding over the years about athletics, football, basketball, and bragging rights. But that is just the beginning of his impressive resume. He went on to study at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and received a master's degree in International Relations. As part of the Johns Hopkins Program in Advanced International Studies Dave spent the better part of a year in Italy. He also did foreign language coursework in Quebec City, Canada, under the auspices of the University of Laval. Over his almost three decades in Washington, Dave has served several different Congressmen, Senators, and organizations, going way back to when he first came to Washington. From 1976 to 1978 he worked for the Republican Study Committee in the House of Representatives. He actually, for a while, had his own firm doing political research called Hoppe & Associates. Then he started his public service career in Washington that has covered an amazing number of professional experiences. He returned to Capitol Hill in 1979 as the executive director of the House Republican Research Committee. Later he moved up to be administrative assistant to the Republican whip in the House when I had the pleasure of serving in that position. He also worked for me as the director of the Republican Platform Committee efforts in 1984 when I was chairman of the Platform Committee. In 1984 he went to work in the office of Congressman Jack Kemp as the chief of staff and of course was involved in his Presidential campaign in 1988. Dave then joined the Heritage Foundation where he served as a vice president. And then went to work in the Senate as the chief of staff for Senator Dan Coats of Indiana. In 1994, I was able to tempt him away from Senator Coats to work for me again as the chief of staff in my position as the Senate majority whip, then as the majority leader, and finally as the Republican leader. In all, this outstanding individual and person has devoted 27 years to Congress and the American people. Now, admittedly with some degree of trepidation I suspect, Dave is going out into the private sector--the real world--to provide for his two oldest children who are presently attending Notre Dame and for Gregory who I mentioned earlier. Anyone would be a little anxious about not knowing exactly what their new role will entail--and after the financial sacrifices over 27 years he probably will not know what to do with the extra money he will be earning in the private sector. But I predict, as in everything else in his life, Dave will be more than successful, he will be superb at whatever endeavor he takes up next. Far too often here, Senators take long, deep bows for our great public policy achievements and forget all the people who helped us get to that point: Our wives--in the case of Dave Hoppe, a wonderful lady named Karen--our families and mothers and fathers who helped raise us; our constituents who put us on their shoulders and turned an ugly frog into a prince; the elevator operators, the pages, the floor staff; and our personal staffs who work long and hard, helping write the speeches, helping draft the amendments, helping us regain our composure when we get a little out of control. Then, when they do move on, we forget to say just a simple thank you and to remind them that they made a difference in the course of history and in the course of America--in many cases, just as surely as any Senator ever did. Dave Hoppe certainly can rest assured that he has made a great difference in this Government, in the Congress, the House, the Senate, in politics, in the study of government, and in America. But the best thing about Dave Hoppe is he believes strongly in his principles, his ideals, and his faith--in fact, that is how he met his wife Karen. They were carpooling, and as they were going to work, they found they shared a lot of common values and views of government and life. Three weeks later, they were engaged, and then married, and have had three wonderful children over the years. So, yes, the best thing about Dave Hoppe is not his educational background, not his expertise, not his knowledge of the Senate, not all the things he has worked on--the best thing about Dave is the kind of human being he is. He is a man who cares deeply about his family and his country, and he has sacrificed mightily to help make a difference for his family and for the people of America. I just wanted to take a few minutes, as Dave enters his last day or two in the Senate, to express my appreciation for his dedicated service and for all he has done, and to wish him great success in the future. But especially, I thank Karen and Katie, Geoffrey, and Gregory for sharing him with me and the country, and for the work they have done to help their father do the tireless work Dave has done in turn to make this nation a better place for all of us. I am delighted to have had an opportunity to ensure his efforts over the past three decades are properly recognized before he turns this page and enters the next chapter of his life.

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield to Senator Reid.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his comments. He is right. At those countless meetings we had in the back of the Chamber, the center aisle, the cloakroom, or in our offices, Dave Hoppe was always there, committed to his philosophy and principles, but always equally committed to getting results for the Senate and for the nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Craig for his leadership on this issue, and also Senator Baucus and Senator Crapo, and a number of others whose States are being severely impacted by very unfair Canadian softwood lumber practices. Forestry is the second largest crop in my State of Mississippi and represents $1.25 billion annually. But what we are dealing with is the dumping of this Canadian softwood into our region of the country. ``Dumping'' is when a company sells a product for less than the cost of production. But the Department of Commerce currently does not consider countervailing duties, which offset subsidies, as a cost of production when evaluating and calculating the amount of dumping and the requisite antidumping duties. The Department's policy of ignoring these countervailing duties when calculating antidumping duties undervalues the amount of the dumping of the products. Let me just say, I have been working on this issue actually for years now. I have worked with the previous administration and have been working with this administration. Our Customs officials have tried to be helpful. And certainly the current Secretary of Commerce has been paying close attention to this issue, and I really appreciate it. But there are limits to what they can do without additional legislation that will make it clear how we will deal with these countervailing duties. So that is why this legislation has been introduced. I think we must have had 8 or 10 Senators who met with the Secretary of Commerce and other officials of Commerce and discussed this problem and its continuing impact on this major industry in my State and in our country, and talked about the need to take some further actions to make sure we are properly evaluating the product that is being dumped in the United States. The United States-Canada softwood lumber dispute is one that has been going on a long time. And it is clear from information we have that the Canadian provinces are subsidizing their industry by providing lumber mills timber at prices that are 33 to 50 percent below market value. Our Commerce Department has found that Canadian companies have been selling lumber in the United States but below their subsidized cost of production, requiring an antidumping duty of 8.79 percent. The fair market value calculation currently undervalues the Canadian dumping practices by comparing a subsidized cost of production to the cost of United States lumber rather than comparing the subsidized cost of production plus the countervailing duty to the cost of United States lumber. That is what this legislation would do. It would correct this by specifying that the CVD duties are to be treated as a cost of production, a clarification of U.S. statute section 19, U.S.C. 1677, which states that all duties should be considered a cost of production incurred on shipments to the United States. Such a change of Department policy is consistent with practices in the European Union and, as a matter of fact, of Canada. The legislation, in my opinion, will have an immediate impact because with the correction of this problem, then, the Canadian mills will face the prospect of paying considerably higher antidumping rates if the lumber market remains at the current low level. So I think this is something we need to do. I have met with Canadian officials, including the Prime Minister, the Ambassador, and Members of their Parliament. I had the impression that while they recognized this is an economic problem in the United States and unfair, they do not believe we are going to take the necessary action to really get a result. And they have been dragging it out now for years. I am going to meet with some Canadian Government officials even tomorrow. I am sure this issue will come up. But once they realize we are serious--I believe this administration, this Commerce Department is serious--we are not going to allow them to sell this product at below production of cost, and that we are also going to include in that figure the cost figure, the countervailing duty orders, I think maybe they will understand that we have to deal with this problem. Even today, bug kill timber is being sold at salvage prices in the interior of British Columbia, which has increased the amount of available timber already on the market. The price for this timber is as low as $1 per 1,000 board feet, when the competitive market value is over $100 per thousand board feet. That gives you some concept of the disadvantage with which our American softwood lumber producers are dealing. Our lumber industry is in a crisis. Make no mistake about it. We have been losing mills. The product value is down. Production is down. If the current market conditions continue, many of our remaining lumber manufacturers will not survive the next 6 months. This is a critical situation, and it is one that is going to get much worse if we don't get some action quickly. The U.S. lumber industry supports the Department's changed circumstances process. Therefore, I think this is a solution we can all work on. As a member of the Finance Committee, along with Senator Baucus, who also serves on the Finance Committee, we will make sure this legislation receives the consideration it deserves. We urge our colleagues in the country that is one of our two or three best friends in the world, Canada, to work with us on this. This is an unfair situation, one that has been going on too long, one that is destroying an important part of our economy. I hope our Government will vigorously pursue the litigation that is now being considered. The WTO has already found that Canada has an actionable subsidy, meaning these duties will be imposed until provinces allow the market to determine the price of timber. Our Government should continue to pursue it. Our Canadian friends and allies should work with us because this is a very unfair situation, one we are trying to remedy by making sure all of the costs of production, including the countervailing duties, are included in their calculations. I congratulate Senator Craig for his leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with him in the future as we come forward with a proper solution to this critical issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Craig for his leadership on this issue, and also Senator Baucus and Senator Crapo, and a number of others whose States are being severely impacted by very unfair Canadian softwood lumber practices. Forestry is the second largest crop in my State of Mississippi and represents $1.25 billion annually. But what we are dealing with is the dumping of this Canadian softwood into our region of the country. ``Dumping'' is when a company sells a product for less than the cost of production. But the Department of Commerce currently does not consider countervailing duties, which offset subsidies, as a cost of production when evaluating and calculating the amount of dumping and the requisite antidumping duties. The Department's policy of ignoring these countervailing duties when calculating antidumping duties undervalues the amount of the dumping of the products. Let me just say, I have been working on this issue actually for years now. I have worked with the previous administration and have been working with this administration. Our Customs officials have tried to be helpful. And certainly the current Secretary of Commerce has been paying close attention to this issue, and I really appreciate it. But there are limits to what they can do without additional legislation that will make it clear how we will deal with these countervailing duties. So that is why this legislation has been introduced. I think we must have had 8 or 10 Senators who met with the Secretary of Commerce and other officials of Commerce and discussed this problem and its continuing impact on this major industry in my State and in our country, and talked about the need to take some further actions to make sure we are properly evaluating the product that is being dumped in the United States. The United States-Canada softwood lumber dispute is one that has been going on a long time. And it is clear from information we have that the Canadian provinces are subsidizing their industry by providing lumber mills timber at prices that are 33 to 50 percent below market value. Our Commerce Department has found that Canadian companies have been selling lumber in the United States but below their subsidized cost of production, requiring an antidumping duty of 8.79 percent. The fair market value calculation currently undervalues the Canadian dumping practices by comparing a subsidized cost of production to the cost of United States lumber rather than comparing the subsidized cost of production plus the countervailing duty to the cost of United States lumber. That is what this legislation would do. It would correct this by specifying that the CVD duties are to be treated as a cost of production, a clarification of U.S. statute section 19, U.S.C. 1677, which states that all duties should be considered a cost of production incurred on shipments to the United States. Such a change of Department policy is consistent with practices in the European Union and, as a matter of fact, of Canada. The legislation, in my opinion, will have an immediate impact because with the correction of this problem, then, the Canadian mills will face the prospect of paying considerably higher antidumping rates if the lumber market remains at the current low level. So I think this is something we need to do. I have met with Canadian officials, including the Prime Minister, the Ambassador, and Members of their Parliament. I had the impression that while they recognized this is an economic problem in the United States and unfair, they do not believe we are going to take the necessary action to really get a result. And they have been dragging it out now for years. I am going to meet with some Canadian Government officials even tomorrow. I am sure this issue will come up. But once they realize we are serious--I believe this administration, this Commerce Department is serious--we are not going to allow them to sell this product at below production of cost, and that we are also going to include in that figure the cost figure, the countervailing duty orders, I think maybe they will understand that we have to deal with this problem. Even today, bug kill timber is being sold at salvage prices in the interior of British Columbia, which has increased the amount of available timber already on the market. The price for this timber is as low as $1 per 1,000 board feet, when the competitive market value is over $100 per thousand board feet. That gives you some concept of the disadvantage with which our American softwood lumber producers are dealing. Our lumber industry is in a crisis. Make no mistake about it. We have been losing mills. The product value is down. Production is down. If the current market conditions continue, many of our remaining lumber manufacturers will not survive the next 6 months. This is a critical situation, and it is one that is going to get much worse if we don't get some action quickly. The U.S. lumber industry supports the Department's changed circumstances process. Therefore, I think this is a solution we can all work on. As a member of the Finance Committee, along with Senator Baucus, who also serves on the Finance Committee, we will make sure this legislation receives the consideration it deserves. We urge our colleagues in the country that is one of our two or three best friends in the world, Canada, to work with us on this. This is an unfair situation, one that has been going on too long, one that is destroying an important part of our economy. I hope our Government will vigorously pursue the litigation that is now being considered. The WTO has already found that Canada has an actionable subsidy, meaning these duties will be imposed until provinces allow the market to determine the price of timber. Our Government should continue to pursue it. Our Canadian friends and allies should work with us because this is a very unfair situation, one we are trying to remedy by making sure all of the costs of production, including the countervailing duties, are included in their calculations. I congratulate Senator Craig for his leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with him in the future as we come forward with a proper solution to this critical issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment and support the funds that are provided in this section of the energy and water appropriations bill for the Yazoo Backwater Pump Project. I thank the committee for the time they spent on this project and for the funds they provided. Actually, they have a lot of knowledge about this project because it is not new. Let me take a minute to add a few points to the very good points my colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi, already made. First of all, the Great Flood of 1927 that hit the Mississippi Delta covered 27,000 square miles, killed more than 500 people, and left 700,000 people homeless. In response to this event and because water from 41 percent of the United States drains through the Delta--I was listening to the discussions about the Devil's Lake project in North Dakota and thinking that the drainage begins way up there, but it all winds up down in this funnel-like area of the Mississippi Delta. Being aware of that, Congress passed the Flood Control Act of 1929 making flood protection in the Mississippi River Valley a Federal responsibility. The Yazoo Pump Project was actually authorized in 1941 as a part of this overall effort. So, you see, this is not something that hasn't been considered and worked on for years and years. The point was made earlier that the Corps of Engineers hasn't finished its review. I wonder, how long does it take? Year after year, these people who live in this area are threatened with floods, as are their homes and businesses and hospitals, as the Senator pointed out. It is a very dangerous situation. This pump actually will protect 1,000 homes--not just a few rich farmers, as has been alleged, but 1,000 homes, and includes, very importantly, the reforestation of over 62,000 acres currently in agricultural production. This is a win-win situation. It protects the people from flooding while restoring large amounts of land to natural habitat. I thought that was what we should be trying to do. This is a project that is being moved forward very carefully. The funding here is slightly short of $15 million. So it is being done incrementally and in a way that will include the ability to improve this natural habitat. This pumping plant, by the way, is not unique. There are currently 15 similar plants in operation throughout Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi within 200 miles of the Yazoo pump. In fact, the W.G. Huxtable Pump in Arkansas is almost the same size as the Yazoo but drains only half the acreage of the Yazoo. The Yazoo will protect 2.6 million acres, while the Huxtable plant drains only 1.3 million acres. This project has bipartisan support from Democrats such as Congressman Bennie Thompson, who has been there and looked at the damage and the threat to the people. He supports this project, as do Democratic State elected officials. Aside from that type of statistic, I think the most important thing is the human side of this. Year after year--and it is almost every year that people have water in their homes. You cannot believe what it is like. I was looking at some of the pictures being shown earlier with the Devil's Lake project. We can show you the same type of pictures from Mississippi--people with sandbags around their houses and the water is up above the porch level. These are hard-working, mostly poor people in this area of the Mississippi Delta--five counties right down at the end of the funnel, really. By the way, in most of these counties, the African-American population is the majority--the lowest is 54 percent, up to as much as 71.8 percent. The delegation Senator Cochran referred to who came to see us was led by Ms. Ruby Johnson of Cary, MS. She met with us to talk about these projects. She had a delegation of five. All five of them were African Americans who literally were concerned about being able to continue to live there. They were talking about how their kids have left the Delta and can't come back. They cannot attract businesses and industry because of, among other things, the threat of the flooding year in and year out. They told us stories about having to put their children in boats to take them to school when the water is rising. They told us of fearing snakes, which find their way into their homes after the waters recede. The Federal Government has made a promise to these good people. This project has been delayed, analyzed, and criticized in the media. Special interest groups are saying it is not being done in an environmentally sound way. It is. A project like this one which will provide flood protection while restoring thousands of acres to its natural habitat should be held up as a model for future environmental projects. I urge defeat of this amendment and support of the Yazoo Backwater Pump. If we don't, we are going to end up with five counties in this area that will have no people and no opportunity for a decent living, or any kind of business, or economic development. We can have all of these in this area if only we keep the promises first made by the federal government over 70 years ago. The people of the Mississippi Delta have waited long enough. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I plead for my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding this time. I understand what the Senator from Pennsylvania is trying to do here, but I am concerned that the Finance Committee has not had a chance to look into this issue, the impact on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Neither has the Commerce Committee. I am also concerned about the precedent that is being set here. It is a rifleshot for one company. The other companies would like to have this same opportunity, perhaps. They are all involved in this Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It may be permissive, as was pointed out, I believe, by the Senator from Virginia. But if this company, US Airways, does not make it in the end, as I understand it, the other companies that pay into this benefit plan will be responsible for covering the losses. Whether or not that is accurate, I am not positive what the impact would be. So that has been my concern, as I expressed to the Senator earlier today. It may have some merit. We may even want to look at setting this precedent. But I don't think we have yet fully thought it through, and I am concerned we may be making a mistake here that could cause tremendous additional damage to the rest of the aviation industry. I am going to be working with Senator McCain, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Rockefeller on this issue this year. We need to take a serious look at aviation as a whole, not only the airlines but labor, obviously--their needs. How we deal with their pensions, what we do about security, the costs they are faced with. It is going to take some time to do this. To do this one rifleshot at this time, I would have to raise questions about it. I would like to be able to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania because I know how committed he is to doing the right thing for the men and women who work for this company, but I express my reservation at this time on this bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before Senator Smith leaves the floor, I would like to say a few words about our colleague and my good friend. First, I thank Senator Smith for his service to New Hampshire and to our country and also thank him for his friendship and support over the years. We have been friends. We have been supporters of each other. I can remember many occasions when I was in leadership roles--which he supported me for--I went to him and asked for his help and sometimes it was not even an issue on which it was easy for him to be supportive. Sometimes it affected my own State. Sometimes it affected the country. But I don't remember a time--when it was the right thing to do--when I asked for his help for our country, or even for my State, that he didn't come through and stand with me. I appreciate that very much. Sometimes the people who help you the most get the least credit, get the least participation in the spoils, so to speak. And sometimes you just forget to say thank you. Sometimes I am guilty of that. In the last 2 weeks, I have been in such a euphoric mood, I am calling people, all the way back to my fourth grade teacher, to thank them. I am in a very grateful and humble mood. I think I should say that to my friend from New Hampshire, too. I haven't sidled up to him enough and said: You are a good Senator and you are a good friend and thank you for all the good work that you have done. But I believe that and I mean it.

Mr. LOTT. I won't ever forget it. I wish you and Mary Jo happiness and success. I believe you will have it. I believe you will find that life after the Senate can be quite nice. In fact, I get a little agitated sometimes when I run into our former colleagues who are now ambassadors and businessmen and businesswomen. They are making money. They are rested and they are tanned and they have new suits and new ties. Wait a minute, why didn't you look this way when you were in the Senate? They say: Hey, it's not too bad out there in the real world. This is a tough job. There are a lot of demands, a lot of things you want to do for your constituents. I know you will find a way to be a productive citizen and will be able to do some things with your family and wife and children you didn't have the opportunity to do before. I certainly hope for that. We look forward to staying in touch with you. We will think about you and say a prayer for you along the way. I want to particularly note your service to our country on the Armed Services Committee on defense issues. Once again, I know some stories about Senator Bob Smith that a lot of others don't know, things that you did on that committee for a weapons system or for a project. It didn't necessarily affect your State, but it was right for our country. You deserve credit for that. You did do some good things for the environment. A lot of people say: Oh, Republicans, you know, they are not going to do anything about clean air, clean water, environmental cleanup. In fact, that is not true. But we want to do it with common sense. Senator Smith did some good things in that position he held on the Environment and Public Works Committee as chairman--and when you were in the minority, too. You have done good work for your State--an interesting State; a great State, I think. Sometimes they show great wisdom. Other times, you know, you wonder about it--kind of like my own constituency, how they vote. But I think you have reflected them quite well and reflected credit on them. I said some things about you last Thursday night at an event that you weren't able to attend, but I want to respond to your comments here today. As I said for others, you can leave here and know that you fought the good fight, you finished the race in good fashion, and you have been a good and true servant for your people and for your country.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.