Softwood Lumber Duties Liquidation Act of 2004

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2004. For the past year, both bodies of Congress and the Administration have been in a numbers debate--disagreeing over the appropriate level of Federal expenditures for surface transportation, highways and public transit, for the next six years.

What this dispute misses are the real issues: 1. What is the state of our surface transportation systems and other public infrastructure? 2. What will the expenditure levels in the bills under consideration do to affect that state? 3. What do the American people want in terms of maintenance, access, congestion, and serviceability of our highways, bridges, public transit, schools, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure sectors?

Now, we have passed an 8 month surface transportation extension because the White House and both bodies of Congress could not even agree on a $318 billion funding level--$57 billion lower than what was recommended by the United States Department of Transportation to maintain our surface transportation. These inadequate levels of funding that were being discussed proves that surface transportation and infrastructure is not a priority of this Congress. This is the precise reason we must establish an infrastructure commission to assess the problems of our nation's infrastructure and recommend solutions. This Congress must understand that a component of America's economic competitiveness lies within our infrastructure.

The reality is that our Nation is in the midst of an infrastructure crisis. In almost every one of these areas, America is losing ground at an alarming pace and inadequate funding on the part of the federal government is the leading cause.

The infrastructure deficit interferes with our personal lives on a daily basis. Increased congestion means longer commutes to and from work. Unrepaired potholes means greater wear and tear on our vehicles. Deteriorating water lines means greater exposure to lead in our drinking water.

Crumbling schools means our children do not receive the quality education they deserve. We cannot expect our children to be productive if their schools' basic amenities do not meet the fundamental standards needed for effective learning. A 2003 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, who I am happy to say support this piece of legislation, in addition to the Associated General Contractors of America and the American Public Works Association, had schools rated as a D- and estimated that 75% of school buildings are inadequate to meet the needs of school children.

An even greater threat is over the horizon. This infrastructure deficit will erode our economic productivity advantage, the principle hope for Americans to maintain our standard of living in the face of fierce global competition. U.S. productivity, and the high standard of living that results, is dependent upon efficient transportation systems and healthy workers.

We are not efficient if our goods are shipped on trucks that are stuck in congested traffic. We are not efficient if our harbors are unable to accommodate the newest generation of freighters. And our workers cannot be productive if our sewer and water lines are in such disrepair that it affects their health.

In 1984, Congress established the National Council on Public Works Improvement to report on the state of the Nation's infrastructure. They found that investment in America's infrastructure was barely keeping up with yearly depreciation and that the system would not be able to adequately respond to increased demand. Their 1988 final report warned that without increased investment, America would be faced with an ``infrastructure crisis.''

Sixteen years later and after the major economic boom of the 1990's, we have failed to maintain, let alone improve, America's infrastructure. The consequences of our inaction are apparent. In the 1988 report, the national infrastructure grade was a ``C.'' The ASCE 2003 Report Card for America's Infrastructure demoted the overall grade to a ``D+.'' It is evident that there has been a deterioration in several aspects of our infrastructure since the 1988 report.

In 1988, roads received a grade of a C+. In 2003, roads were downgraded to a D+.

In 1988, water resources and water supply was given a B and B- respectively. In 2003, drinking water received a D and navigable waterways received a D+.

This deterioration has a ripple effect throughout the entire economy. Public dollars invested in infrastructure increases the productivity of private investment, which keeps the U.S. competitive in the global economy.

What should we do? In the short run, any infrastructure bill passed prior to the development of a long-term plan should be for 3 years or less in duration. This is the only way to keep the political heat on the White House and the Congress. Our recent experience with 6-year authorization bills, such as the highway bill, demonstrates the Jekyll and Hyde approach we have taken toward infrastructure. There is a moderate peak of attention when the legislation is up for reauthorization, then, more than a half a decade of disinterest.

Also in the short run, Congress must restrain itself from using the surface transportation act and other infrastructure legislation as a field of turkeys with the gobblers to be brought home to voters. The ability of Congress to restrain itself would be enormously enhanced if the relevant federal agencies would immediately get to the task of developing nation-wide standards of need, so that the Congress would have a standard against which to allocate resources. Like the United States Department of Transportation, other agencies need to assess their needs and report back to the Congress and the White House one year prior to the expiration of the current laws.

In the long run, we must come to grips with this burgeoning infrastructure deficit. One model could be the National Highway Act of the 1950s, when under the leadership of President Eisenhower, the states and the federal government came together to jointly finance and construct an interstate highway system, a system which has transformed our nation. President Eisenhower recognized that the highway system would benefit the entire nation, and called on Congress to support his vision. In his words, ``. . . the uniting forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear--United States.'' Today, his words still resonate. Improving infrastructure should be a cause around which we can all unite. If we act, the entire country benefits; if we fail to act, the entire country suffers.

This new infrastructure initiative could use many of Eisenhower's same principles and apply them to rebuild America and protect and advance our nation's social and economic future. The establishment of this national commission on infrastructure to report to the President and the Congress in 2\1/2\ years would be a step in the right direction.

I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation to ensure that the nation's infrastructure will one day meet current and future demands and more importantly, facilitate economic growth.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Leahy and Jeffords to introduce the Truth in Trials Act. This is a narrowly tailored bill that would allow defendants in Federal criminal trials regarding medicinal marijuana to introduce evidence that their marijuana-related activity was performed in compliance with State law regarding the medical use of marijuana. It also would provide defendants in such trials with an affirmative defense if they establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their activities complied with State law.

Let me be clear. This legislation does not legalize marijuana. It does not even legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. It only is meant to address the conflict between State and Federal law with regard to medical marijuana. Under this legislation, defendants in the ten States with medicinal marijuana laws could be found not guilty of violating Federal law if their actions are done in compliance with State law.

Why is this legislation necessary?

Over the past 8 years, ten States have passed referendums or enacted laws authorizing medical marijuana in those States. The first of these states was California. In 1996, voters in California passed the California Compassionate Use Act, also known as Proposition 215, to allow seriously ill people who have a doctor's recommendation to cultivate and use marijuana as a form of treatment.

However, in 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration began aggressively targeting medical marijuana providers in California and these other States--regardless of the fact that these individuals were complying with State law.

Consider who these so-called criminals are that the DEA is targeting and arresting.

The city of Oakland enacted a medicinal marijuana ordinance, as permitted by California law, and Ed Rosenthal grew marijuana to be sold for medicinal uses under the auspices of this ordinance. Even though Mr. Rosenthal was acting as an officer of the city, in February 2002, DEA agents raided his facility and arrested him of marijuana cultivation and conspiracy.

Since Federal law does not recognize ``medical necessity'' as a defense, Mr. Rosenthal was not allowed to tell the jury that he was growing the marijuana for medicinal purposes. The prosecutors took this opportunity to present Mr. Rosenthal as a big-time drug dealer, and the jury had no choice but to convict Mr. Rosenthal.

After the trial, the jurors learned that Mr. Rosenthal was growing medical marijuana and complained that they had been misled by the court. Five jurors immediately issued a public apology to him and demanded a new trial. Their statement said, ``In this trial, the prosecution was allowed to put all of the evidence and testimony on one of the scales, while the defense was not allowed to put its evidence and testimony on the other side. Therefore we were not allowed as a jury to properly weight the case.''

During the sentencing phase of the trial, nine of the twelve jurors asked that Mr. Rosenthal not be imprisoned because they had convicted him ``without having all the evidence.'' Due to these unique circumstances, the judge sentenced Mr. Rosenthal to one day in prison and a $1,000 fine, the most lenient sentence allowed under the law. Yet, the prosecutor, who had asked for a six-and-a-half-year sentence, has appealed this sentence.

Another example is the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, a nonprofit collective of patients and their caregivers, 85 percent of whom are terminally ill with cancer or AIDS. One member of this organization is Suzanne Pfeil, who suffers from post-polio syndrome and experiences extreme pain and muscle spasticity. She is allergic to opiates and does not tolerate many pharmaceutical drugs, so her physician recommended medicinal marijuana, in accordance with California State law. Here, in her own words, is what happened to her in 2002:

At dawn on September 5th, 2002, I awoke to five federal

agents pointing assault rifles at my head, I did not hear

them come in because my respirator is rather loud. They

yelled at me to put my hands in the air and to stand up

``NOW.'' I tried to explain to them that I needed to put my

hands down on the bed in order to sit up because I am

paralyzed. They again shouted at me to stand up. I pointed to

my crutches and braces beside the bed and said, ``I'm sorry,

I can't stand up without my crutches and braces and I

normally use a wheelchair.'' At that point they ripped the

covers off the bed and finally realized what I was trying to

explain amid their shouts and guns. They handcuffed me behind

my back and left me on the bed. The DEA then proceeded to

confiscate medication recommended to me by my physician under

California State Law Proposition 215. My crime? I am a member

of the WAMM, the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, a

nonprofit collective of patients and their caregivers working

together to provide free medication and hospice services to

approximately 250 seriously ill and dying members. The DEA

then destroyed our collective garden and arrested our

Director Valerie Corral, who is an epileptic, and her

caregiver and husband Michael Corral.

This conflict between State and Federal law is a serious one, and one that will be addressed by the Supreme Court later this year in the case of Ashcroft v. Raich. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rule in this case that is unconstitutional to prosecute medicinal marijuana users under federal law in states with medicinal marijuana laws, as long as the marijuana is not sold or transported across state lines.

The Truth in Trials Act is consistent with this Circuit Court ruling, which I hope the Supreme Court will uphold, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today with the support of many of my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to introduce legislation to help keep Americans' telephone bills from rising and to prevent future disruption to the Universal Service Fund. The Universal Service Fund helps keep telephone rates at a reasonable level for millions of American consumers and businesses located in rural parts of our country, areas where phone service would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. The USF also provides discounts to schools and libraries on their Internet service through the E-Rate program, which I and Senator Rockefeller worked to establish in 1996. Finally the USF makes basic ``life line'' phone service available to low-income Americans, and gives assistance to rural health care providers.

The bill I introduce today is a corrective measure that addresses problems recently encountered by the Universal Service Administration Company, or ``USAC,'' the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress created to administer the USF. Specifically, this bill deals with a decision by the FCC that ordered USAC to adhere to a special set of accounting rules that applies to government agencies. As a private company, USAC had utilized the same accounting rules as used by the private sector, but was told last year that it was subject to the Anti- Deficiency Act, a law that prevents government agencies from incurring financial obligations beyond the amount that has been appropriated to them by Congress. Adherence to government accounting rules is one of the Anti-Deficiency Act's requirements.

However, the switch to government accounting rules has caused an unforseen disruption in the operation of the USF. In July 2004, USAC was notified that its method for accounting for funding commitments made to schools and libraries under the E-Rate program was illegal under the new government accounting rules, even though the method was perfectly proper under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a result, USAC was forced to place an enormous amount of cash on its books by the close of the fiscal year, September 30; to freeze the program on August 3, preventing any action on applications for E-Rate discounts right before the start of the school year; and to liquidate all of its assets, resulting in $4.6 million in penalties and an estimated loss of $30 million in expected interest income.

While USAC believes it can resume acting upon applications for E-Rate discount later this month, it notified the FCC on November 1 that, in order to continue compliance with the new government accounting rules, the USF contribution factor must be raised. The contribution factor is the portion of each customer's phone bill that is paid into the USF. Currently the charge is 8.9 percent of a customer's interstate calls made, but it will likely rise to 13 percent or more. Of course, this increase would be passed right on to consumers and businesses. Worse yet, this accounting change is likely to affect the other components of the USF as well, since they by and large operate in the same manner. If the USF as a whole is forced to make the same accounting changes that were imposed on E-Rate, the USF contribution factor may rise to 25 percent or more by January 1, 2005.

As a result of a seemingly innocuous accounting rule change, schools and libraries across the country have been unable to obtain much-needed discounts on their Internet connections, leading many to shut off their Internet service altogether. A similar strain may be encountered by the USF as a whole, jeopardizing price supports for rural- and low-income Americans on their phone service. And if no immediate action is taken, the telephone bills of American consumers and businesses are slated to rise significantly come the beginning of the new year.

My colleagues and I have examined this issue and worked closely with the FCC and our counterparts on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. We have determined that, given the pending phone bill increases on January 1, the only way to address this problem is to pass a law exempting the Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act through December 31, 2005. During this exemption period, USAC can continue to operate its programs in an orderly manner, phone bills can remain stable, and both Congress and the Executive Branch can work on a permanent solution to this problem. There is ample precedent for an exemption; indeed, many government programs are permanently exempted from the Anti-Deficiency Act, such as the National Park Service and the Conservation Trust.

This is a bipartisan effort among those Members who deal with telecommunications issues regularly. We have worked closely with the FCC and the House, and we have the support of the telecom industry, educators, and state and local governments. A permanent solution might require legislation, or it might not, but either way we will require sufficient time to craft that fix. This bill ensures that, in the

meantime, the status quo is preserve, schools and libraries receive their Internet funding, the USF continues to operate soundly, and consumers' telephone bills do not rise.

Mr. President, I rise today in disappointment, but also with resolve.

After more than 2 years of negotiations between the United States and Canada, there is still no agreement on how to manage softwood lumber trade between our two countries. This is disappointing, particularly given the importance of the issue. Perhaps what is most disappointing, though, is that the negotiations appear to have fallen off, despite the fact that parties last year seemed close to an agreement.

There might be some who think that the recent NAFTA decisions signal an imminent conclusion of the litigation, and that deposits collected by U.S. Customs will be returned soon. As one who has seen this dispute wax and wane for nearly 30 years, this seems to me a naive expectation. The fact is that the recent NAFTA decisions had more to do with a bitter disagreement between the NAFTA panelists and the U.S. International Trade Commission about investigative methodologies than whether or not the Canadian timber policies are consistent with NAFTA obligations. The bottom line--and this is the issue at the root of this dispute--is that the Canadian policies are deeply inconsistent with the notion of a free and integrated North American market. The timber subsidies provide Canadian mills with a significant, artificial advantage. Until this basic issue is resolved, this dispute--including this litigation and the duties imposed on importers--will continue.

In my judgment, the most effective, durable, and fair resolution to this decades-old problem will be found only through a negotiated settlement. This means both parties sitting down at the table and finding a mutually acceptable solution that provides for timber policies that are consistent and compatible. However, pulling away from the negotiating table and relying on litigation isn't going to get us there.

Under current U.S. law, the deposits sitting in escrow are eligible for liquidation. As I have said, I would prefer a negotiated settlement--one that resolves all matters of disagreement, including the disposition of these deposits. but some involved in the negotiation appear to have decided upon litigation as their preferred method of resolution. If it is necessary for more and my colleagues to assert the legal rights available to the U.S. industry as a way of reminding the parties of the stakes that are still very much on the table, then that is what we will do.

Today, my good friend, Larry Craig and I have introduced a bill that would order the Commerce Department to begin the process of liquidating the approximately $3 billion sitting in escrow, as a result of the antidumping and countervailing duties imposed upon imports of Canadian softwood lumber since March 2002. Further, these deposits are to be distributed to the U.S. lumber industry, which have been seriously injured by Canada's timber policies and which petitioned for these duties in the first place. This measure is consistent with current U.S. law and, if enacted, I expect the U.S. government to defend it to the hilt.

I hope that our action today will spark a return--by both sides--to the negotiating table. However, if it does not, and if a settlement is not reached, I will not hesitate to push forcefully for enactment of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in disappointment, but also with resolve.

After more than 2 years of negotiations between the United States and Canada, there is still no agreement on how to manage softwood lumber trade between our two countries. This is disappointing, particularly given the importance of the issue. Perhaps what is most disappointing, though, is that the negotiations appear to have fallen off, despite the fact that parties last year seemed close to an agreement.

There might be some who think that the recent NAFTA decisions signal an imminent conclusion of the litigation, and that deposits collected by U.S. Customs will be returned soon. As one who has seen this dispute wax and wane for nearly 30 years, this seems to me a naive expectation. The fact is that the recent NAFTA decisions had more to do with a bitter disagreement between the NAFTA panelists and the U.S. International Trade Commission about investigative methodologies than whether or not the Canadian timber policies are consistent with NAFTA obligations. The bottom line--and this is the issue at the root of this dispute--is that the Canadian policies are deeply inconsistent with the notion of a free and integrated North American market. The timber subsidies provide Canadian mills with a significant, artificial advantage. Until this basic issue is resolved, this dispute--including this litigation and the duties imposed on importers--will continue.

In my judgment, the most effective, durable, and fair resolution to this decades-old problem will be found only through a negotiated settlement. This means both parties sitting down at the table and finding a mutually acceptable solution that provides for timber policies that are consistent and compatible. However, pulling away from the negotiating table and relying on litigation isn't going to get us there.

Under current U.S. law, the deposits sitting in escrow are eligible for liquidation. As I have said, I would prefer a negotiated settlement--one that resolves all matters of disagreement, including the disposition of these deposits. but some involved in the negotiation appear to have decided upon litigation as their preferred method of resolution. If it is necessary for more and my colleagues to assert the legal rights available to the U.S. industry as a way of reminding the parties of the stakes that are still very much on the table, then that is what we will do.

Today, my good friend, Larry Craig and I have introduced a bill that would order the Commerce Department to begin the process of liquidating the approximately $3 billion sitting in escrow, as a result of the antidumping and countervailing duties imposed upon imports of Canadian softwood lumber since March 2002. Further, these deposits are to be distributed to the U.S. lumber industry, which have been seriously injured by Canada's timber policies and which petitioned for these duties in the first place. This measure is consistent with current U.S. law and, if enacted, I expect the U.S. government to defend it to the hilt.

I hope that our action today will spark a return--by both sides--to the negotiating table. However, if it does not, and if a settlement is not reached, I will not hesitate to push forcefully for enactment of this legislation.