A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to permit a State to register a Canadian pesticide for distribution and use within that State.

Today I am introducing legislation to correct a long- standing inequity that has caused hardship for American farmers. That inequity is the pricing of agricultural pesticides for American producers in relationship to Canadian pesticide pricing. My bill would solve this inequity by allowing individual States to label Canadian pesticides that have the same formula as those used in the U.S. for use by American farmers.

Farmers combine land, water, commercial inputs, labor, and their management skills into practices and systems to produce food and fiber. To sustain production over time, farmers must make a profit and preserve their resource and financial assets. Society wants food and fiber products that are low-cost, safe to consume, and aesthetically pleasing, and wants production systems that preserve or enhance the environment. These often competing goals and pressures are reflected not only in the inputs made available for production, but also in how the inputs are selected, combined, and managed at the farm level.

Time and time again I have come to Senate floor to point out the stark realities of free trade. I have talked at length about the flood of imported grain that streams across our border. Come to my State of North Dakota. Every day truckload after truckload of Canadian commodities, wheat, barley, durum, come across our border to compete with commodities grown here at home. These Canadian imports are grown with the aid of pesticides, pesticides of the same makeup and composition as those purchased in the United States. Yet Canadian producers have the luxury of buying those same chemicals at prices substantially lower than those American farmers have to pay.

Why? The answer is simple; pesticide manufacturers charge American farmers more because they can. In agricultural policy, benefits from the North American Free Trade Agreement flow the same direction as the Red River of my State, north. This is especially true of pesticide pricing.

A recent survey completed by North Dakota State University surveyed 15 different pesticides commonly used in both Canada and North Dakota. All would qualify for registration in North Dakota under this bill. Of the 15, not one, not one, had a price differential in favor of the American farmer. When you totaled it all out, those 15 chemicals cost, in North Dakota alone, $23.7 million more, in 1 year, for the American producer. That's just not right.

If we're going to have free trade, let's make it fair trade. If we are going to open our borders to Canadian grain grown with Canadian pesticides, we ought to open our borders to similar pesticides for U.S. producers at the same cost. It's time to level the playing field for American farmers, we must give them the same advantages that Canadian producers have enjoyed for years. If we're going to have a free trade agreement with Canada, let's all sing from the same page, using the same music. Because putting American farmers at a disadvantage in the world marketplace over pesticide prices that are not in harmony with our competitors is a practice that must be stopped. It must be stopped now.

Nothing in this legislation harms the environment, unless you're in the environment of profits. This legislation would create a procedure whereby individual states could apply and receive an Environmental Protection Agency label for agricultural chemicals sold in Canada that are identical or substantially similar to agricultural chemicals used in the United States. Thus, U.S. producers and suppliers could purchase such chemicals in Canada for use in the United States.

The new labels for the chemicals would still be under the strict scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency as would their use. This would continue to insure safety in the food supply. Food safety is a number one priority for all of us. Chemical safety is a number one priority for all of us. This bill keeps those priorities intact.

It is impossible to defend chemical price imbalance. You can't defend it to the growers, you can't defend it to the chemical distributor, and you can't defend it to the chemical retailer. Most importantly, you can't defend it to the American consumer, who ultimately pays the tab.

Let's be clear, this is not the end of the journey but the beginning. We have a long way to go to cure the imbalances of trade between our nations. If we don't begin the journey, we can't end it. This bill is a step in the right direction.

I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Today I am introducing legislation to correct a long- standing inequity that has caused hardship for American farmers. That inequity is the pricing of agricultural pesticides for American producers in relationship to Canadian pesticide pricing. My bill would solve this inequity by allowing individual States to label Canadian pesticides that have the same formula as those used in the U.S. for use by American farmers.

Farmers combine land, water, commercial inputs, labor, and their management skills into practices and systems to produce food and fiber. To sustain production over time, farmers must make a profit and preserve their resource and financial assets. Society wants food and fiber products that are low-cost, safe to consume, and aesthetically pleasing, and wants production systems that preserve or enhance the environment. These often competing goals and pressures are reflected not only in the inputs made available for production, but also in how the inputs are selected, combined, and managed at the farm level.

Time and time again I have come to Senate floor to point out the stark realities of free trade. I have talked at length about the flood of imported grain that streams across our border. Come to my State of North Dakota. Every day truckload after truckload of Canadian commodities, wheat, barley, durum, come across our border to compete with commodities grown here at home. These Canadian imports are grown with the aid of pesticides, pesticides of the same makeup and composition as those purchased in the United States. Yet Canadian producers have the luxury of buying those same chemicals at prices substantially lower than those American farmers have to pay.

Why? The answer is simple; pesticide manufacturers charge American farmers more because they can. In agricultural policy, benefits from the North American Free Trade Agreement flow the same direction as the Red River of my State, north. This is especially true of pesticide pricing.

A recent survey completed by North Dakota State University surveyed 15 different pesticides commonly used in both Canada and North Dakota. All would qualify for registration in North Dakota under this bill. Of the 15, not one, not one, had a price differential in favor of the American farmer. When you totaled it all out, those 15 chemicals cost, in North Dakota alone, $23.7 million more, in 1 year, for the American producer. That's just not right.

If we're going to have free trade, let's make it fair trade. If we are going to open our borders to Canadian grain grown with Canadian pesticides, we ought to open our borders to similar pesticides for U.S. producers at the same cost. It's time to level the playing field for American farmers, we must give them the same advantages that Canadian producers have enjoyed for years. If we're going to have a free trade agreement with Canada, let's all sing from the same page, using the same music. Because putting American farmers at a disadvantage in the world marketplace over pesticide prices that are not in harmony with our competitors is a practice that must be stopped. It must be stopped now.

Nothing in this legislation harms the environment, unless you're in the environment of profits. This legislation would create a procedure whereby individual states could apply and receive an Environmental Protection Agency label for agricultural chemicals sold in Canada that are identical or substantially similar to agricultural chemicals used in the United States. Thus, U.S. producers and suppliers could purchase such chemicals in Canada for use in the United States.

The new labels for the chemicals would still be under the strict scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency as would their use. This would continue to insure safety in the food supply. Food safety is a number one priority for all of us. Chemical safety is a number one priority for all of us. This bill keeps those priorities intact.

It is impossible to defend chemical price imbalance. You can't defend it to the growers, you can't defend it to the chemical distributor, and you can't defend it to the chemical retailer. Most importantly, you can't defend it to the American consumer, who ultimately pays the tab.

Let's be clear, this is not the end of the journey but the beginning. We have a long way to go to cure the imbalances of trade between our nations. If we don't begin the journey, we can't end it. This bill is a step in the right direction.

I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am re-introducing legislation, together with my colleague Senator Mikulski, to re-designate Catoctin Mountain Park as the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. I first introduced this measure in October 2002, but unfortunately it was not acted upon during the closing days of the 107th Congress. It is my hope that the legislation will receive full and prompt consideration this year.

I spoke last year about the need for this legislation and would like to underscore the principal arguments today. Catoctin Mountain Park is a hidden gem in our National Park System. Home to Camp David, the Presidential retreat, it has been aptly described as ``America's most famous unknown park.'' Comprising nearly 6000 acres of the eastern reach of the Appalachian Mountains in Maryland, the park is rich in history as well as outdoor recreation opportunities. Visitors can enjoy camping, picnicking, cross-country skiing, fishing, as well as the solitude and beauty of the woodland mountain and streams in the park.

Catoctin Mountain Park had its origins during the Great Depression as one of 46 Recreational Demonstration Areas, RDA, established under the authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Federal Government purchased more than 10,000 acres of mountain land that had been heavily logged and was no longer productive to demonstrate how sub-marginal land could be turned into a productive recreational area and help put people back to work. From 1936 through 1941, hundreds of workers under the Works Progress Administration and later the Civilian Conservation Corps were employed in reforestation activities and in the construction of a number of camps, roads and other facilities, including the camp now known as Camp David, and one of the earliest--if not the oldest--camp for disabled individuals. In November 1936, administrative authority for the Catoctin RDA was transferred to the National Park Service by Executive Order.

In 1942, concern about President Roosevelt's health and safety led to the selection of Catoctin Mountain, and specifically Camp Hi-Catoctin as the location for the President's new retreat. Subsequently approximately 5,000 acres of the area was transferred to the State of Maryland, becoming Cunningham Falls State Park in 1954. The remaining 5,770 acres of the Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area was renamed Catoctin Mountain Park by the Director of the National Park Service in 1954. Unfortunately, the Director failed to include the term ``National'' in the title and the park today remains one of 17 units in the entire National Park System and one of 9 units in the National Capital Region that does not have this designation. Those units include four parkways, four wild and scenic rivers, the White House and Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts.

The proximity of Catoctin Mountain Park, Camp David, and Cunningham Falls State Park, and the differences between national and state park management, has caused longstanding confusion for visitors to the area. Catoctin Mountain Park is continually misidentified by the public as containing lake and beach areas associated with Cunningham Falls State Park, being operated by the State of Maryland, or being closed to the public because of the presence of Camp David. National Park employees spend countless hours explaining, assisting and redirecting visitors to their desired destinations.

My legislation would help to address this situation and clearly identify this park as a unit of the National Park System by renaming it the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. The mission and characteristics of this park--which include the preservation of significant historic resources and important natural areas in locations that provide outdoor recreation for large numbers of people--make this designation appropriate. This measure would not change access requirements or current recreational uses occurring within the park. But it would assist the visiting public in distinguishing between the many units of the State and Federal systems. It will also, in my judgment, help promote tourism by enhancing public awareness of the National Park unit.

The legislation is supported by the Board of County Commissioners and Tourism Council of Frederick County. I urge approval of this legislation.

Mr. President, during the last Congress Senator Feingold and I sponsored the Transparency for Independent Livestock Producers Act, or what we have generally referred to as the ``Transparency Act''. Today we are once again working together in a bipartisan fashion to re-introduce this important legislation.

As everyone knows, I introduced the packer ban this Congress because I want more competition in the marketplace. While I don't think packers should be in the same business as independent livestock producers, it's not the fact that the packers own the livestock that bothers me as much as the fact that the packers' livestock competes for shackle space and adversely impacts the price independent producers receive.

My sponsorship of the packer ban is based on the belief that independent producers should have the opportunity to receive a fair price for their livestock. The last few years have led to widespread consolidation and concentration in the packing industry. Add on the trend toward vertical integration among packers and there is no question why independent producers are losing the opportunity to market their own livestock during profitable cycles in the live meat markets.

The past CEO of IBP in 1994 explained that the reason packers own livestock is that when the price is high the packers use their own livestock for the lines and when the price is low the packers buy livestock. This means that independent producers are most likely being limited from participating in the most profitable ranges of the live market. This is not good for the survival of the independent producer.

This bipartisan legislation would guarantee that independent producers have a share in the market place while assisting the Mandatory Price Reporting system. The proposal would require that 25 percent of a packer's daily kill comes from the spot market. By requiring a 25 percent spot market purchase daily, the mandatory price reporting system, which has been criticized due to reporting and accuracy problems, would have consistent, reliable numbers being purchased from the spot market, improving the accuracy and transparency of daily prices. In addition, independent livestock producers would be guaranteed a competitive position due to the packers need to fill the daily 25 percent spot/cash market requirement.

The packs required to comply would be the same packs required to report under the Mandatory Price Reporting system. Those are packs that kill either 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of hogs, or 75,000 lambs annually, over a 5 year average.

Packers are arguing that this will hurt their ability to offer contracts to producers, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of livestock contracts pay out on a calculation incorporating Mandatory Price Reporting data. If the Mandatory Price Reporting data is not accurate, or open to possible manipulation because of low numbers on the spot market, contracts are not beneficial tools for producers to manage their risk. This legislative proposal will hopefully give confidence to independent livestock producers by improving the accuracy and viability of the Mandatory Price reporting system and secure fair prices for contracts based on that data.

It's just common sense, when there aren't a lot of cattle and pigs being purchased on the cash market, it's easier for the Mandatory Price reporting data to be inaccurate or manipulated. The majority of livestock production contracts are based on that data, so if that information is wrong the contract producers suffer.

This legislation will guarantee independent livestock producers market access and a fair price. It will accomplish these goals by making it more difficult for the Mandatory Price Reporting System to be manipulated because of low numbers being reported by the packs. The Transparency Act is crucial legislation to guarantee livestock producers receive a fair shake at the farm gate and I am looking forward to working on this legislation in a bipartisan fashion.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to correct an inequity in the laws affecting many Native American children. I am joined by Senators McCain, Inouye, Baucus, Johnson, Domenici, Bingaman, Cochran and Stabenow, in sponsoring this important piece of legislation. This effort is also supported by the National Indian Child Welfare Association, the American Public Human Services Association, and the National Congress of American Indians.

Every year, for a variety of often tragic reasons, thousands of children across the country are placed in foster care. To assist with the cost of food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision and school supplies, foster parents of children who have come to their homes through state court placement receive financial assistance through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Additionally, States receive funding for administrative training and data collection to support this program. Unfortunately, because of a legislative oversight, many Native American children who are placed in foster care by tribal courts do not receive foster care and adoptive services and assistance to which all other income-eligible children are entitled.

Not only are otherwise eligible Native children denied foster care maintenance payments, but this inequity also extends to children who are adopted through tribal placements. Currently, the IV-E program offers limited assistance for expenses associated with adoption and the training of professional staff and parents involved in the adoption. These circumstances, sadly, have made it even harder for Indian children to attain the permanency they need and deserve.

In many instances, these children face insurmountable odds. Many come from abusive homes. Foster parents who open their doors to care for these special children deserve our help. These generous people should not have to worry about whether they have the resources to provide nourishing food or a warm coat, or even adequate shelter for these children. This legislation will go a long way to ease their concerns.

Currntly, some tribes and states have entered into IV-E agreements, but these arrangements are the exception. They also, by and large, do not include funds to train tribal social workers and foster and adoptive parents. This bill would make it clear that tribes would be treated like a state when they choose to run their own programs under the IV-E program.

The bill we are introducing today would: extend the Title IV-E entitlement programs to children placed by tribal agencies in foster and adoptive homes; authorize tribal governments to receive direct funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for administration of IV-E programs (tribes must have HHS-approved programs); allow the Secretary flexibility to modify the requirements of the IV-E law for tribes if those requirements are not in the best interest of Native children; and allow continuation of tribal-State IV- E agreements.

In a 1994 report, HHS found that the best way to serve this underfunded group is to provide direct assistance to tribal governments qualified tribal families. This bill would not result in reduced funding for the States, as they would continue to be reimbursed for their expenses under the law.

I strongly believe Congress should address this oversight and provide equitable benefits to native American children who are under the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.