Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I suggested to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and he agreed, that it would be appropriate and, in fact, it would be a good idea, to pass legislation today which would allow Americans to give a full deduction that is available under current law to the tsunami relief effort in 2004, if they wish. Even though we are clearly now in 2005, the idea is and the legislation would provide that, for Americans who want to give to the tsunami relief effort and take that contribution on their 2004 tax returns, they may do so.

I am very encouraged the House took up that bill a few minutes ago. It is unclear as to when that will actually pass, but it is my understanding it will pass today. I have spoken to a good number of Senators about this legislation, and I have with me a long list of cosponsors of this legislation. I think it would be good for us to do this right away. I say quickly because the IRS has informed me that the sooner we pass this, the better. That is, the sooner we pass the legislation, the more easily they can work with American taxpayers who want to take this deduction--it is a cash deduction--in 2004.

It is framed as a cash deduction because that is what the relief agencies want. They want cash. First, cash can be transmitted much more quickly than in-kind contributions, as much as food and clothes is important. They can transmit the cash contribution with the speed of light, frankly. Second, with cash it can be disbursed and sent to the area where it is needed the most. Maybe food is needed, maybe medical supplies are needed in one area more than another, maybe clothing or tents or whatnot is needed. With the cash available, the relief agencies can decide what is the best use.

This is also the approach taken by our President when he nominated and encouraged former President Bush and former President Clinton to go nationwide to encourage Americans to contribute to the relief effort. They, too, suggest cash contributions are best. They are much more efficient. It is what makes the most sense as being the most helpful to the people in that part of the world who need it the most.

I have a special feeling, almost reverence, for Southeast Asia, because I have traveled in that part of the world many times. The Southeast Asia ambassadors have been guests of mine in my home State of Montana just recently, this past year. I visited Southeast Asia quite recently. My heart, all of our hearts, clearly, go out to the victims and their families. Words cannot describe the extent and depth of this tragedy, and I am not going to make the effort to do so. But certainly when we see the photographs and we read the reports and hear people such as Secretary Colin Powell comment on what they have seen and what has happened or has not happened over there, it tugs very deeply at the hearts of all of us. That part of the world has our deepest prayers and our fondest hopes that we will do all we can to help out.

That is happening. The American public, the American people are the most generous people in the world. I don't know what it is, there is something extra special about the American spirit. We dig down to help people who need help. We are there. I think it is probably because we are a society that is much more open than most others. We are also a country with many immigrants. We feel for the goings on in other countries in the world.

We are a young country by comparison. I wouldn't say that makes us naive, but it certainly enables us to have much more hope about the future because we still are young. We are very hopeful. Many countries that are much older do not have quite the same hope, it seems. There is maybe a little cynicism--they have seen it all, or maybe not, but we are a country that is open and we want to help.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a resolution which would accelerate the income benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims in the Indian Ocean tsunami. Also, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of all the cosponsors of this Senate joint resolution. I am not going to read all the names. It is a long list.

Mr. President, I want our colleagues to know that Senator Grassley and I were joined in the effort to provide tsunami relief assistance by dozens of our Colleagues. I want to acknowledge them by asking for unanimous consent that the text of the Senate Joint Resolution and the full list of cosponsors be printed in the Record.

Senator Akaka of Hawaii, Senator Alexander of Tennessee,

Senator Biden of Delaware, Senator Bunning of Kentucky,

Senator Byrd of West Virginia, Senator Cantwell of

Washington, Senator Clinton of New York, Senator Corzine of

New Jersey, Senator Dayton of Minnesota, Senator Durbin of

Illinois, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, Senator Feinstein of

California, Senator Hagel of Nebraska, Senator Harkin of

Iowa, Senator Hatch of Utah, Senator Inouye of Hawaii,

Senator Jeffords of Vermont, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts,

Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana.

Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, Senator Leahy of Vermont,

Senator Levin of Michigan, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator

Mikulski of Maryland, Senator Murray of Washington, Senator

Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Obama

of Illinois, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Rockefeller of

West Virginia, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, Senator

Schumer of New York, Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Wyden

of Oregon, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, Senator Dorgan of

North Dakota, Senator Dodd of Connecticut.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing sympathies to the family of Representative Bob Matsui, who passed away over the weekend. I was shocked and saddened to hear the news about our old friend.

While few Montanans may know Bob Matsui, he did embody one trait Montanans are familiar with. He was always willing to reach out to those across the aisle to get the job done. He and I shared this work philosophy on free trade especially. He was a tireless advocate in the Congress for America's trade agenda and was essential to the enactment of many historic international agreements.

We will surely miss his leadership on critical issues this next Congress, such as Social Security, one issue where the American people expect and deserve a healthy, vigorous, and open debate. And for that type of debate, you could certainly count on Bob Matsui to deliver.

Despite starting his life as a child unjustly interned by his own Government during World War II, Bob later rose to serve in that very Government at its highest echelons, as a Member of Congress. How proud his family must have been to see this dynamic man elected to public office, where he championed legislation to apologize for the internment of Japanese American families such as his. Overcoming obstacles and injustices to rise to a level of public admiration, respect, and trust may sound like a Hollywood story; to Bob, though, it was his life story.

Wanda and I send our prayers and sympathies to his family; his wife Doris, son Brian, daughter-in-law Amy, and granddaughter Anna. He will be greatly missed by us all.

Last week the Senate lost one of its most dedicated public servants. Stan Kimmitt was deeply devoted to this great body and to his beloved country. He never forgot his humble beginnings and strong Montana roots. Stan devoted his life to public service, always defending democracy and decency whether it was on the dangerous battlefields of War World II Europe or in the Halls of the U.S. Capitol, he always held true to his core values.

Born James Stanley Kimmitt on April 5, 1918, to wheat farmers in Lewistown, MT, the 1920s drought forced the family to move to Great Falls where he was raised. After graduating from the University of Montana in Missoula in 1940, Stan immediately enlisted to serve his country in World War II. He fought as a tireless combat commander often volunteering to lead the most dangerous missions. Stan was eventually part of the first U.S. division to occupy Berlin and he was honored for his service by receiving the Silver and Bronze Stars. Stan would later heroically fight in the Korean war and his accomplishments were recognized when he was inducted into the Field Artillery Officer Candidate School Hall of Fame. Stan's exemplary military career served as a great building block for what lay ahead for his career.

When he returned to the States, Stan sought other ways to serve his country. One presented itself when Mike Mansfield was elected to the U.S. Senate from Montana. As Senator Mansfield's chief of staff, Stan was able to honor his roots and work on the issues important to his beloved home State. When Senator Mansfield became majority leader, his right-hand man, Stan Kimmitt, became his secretary of the majority. For 11 years, Mike and Stan worked quietly behind the scenes reaching across party lines to provide support to move the country forward. Kimmitt's long tenure represented a deep desire to work behind the scenes with both sides to provide support to move the country forward. It is clear that both sides respected this commitment.

Stan's leadership and ability to move opposing forces forward made him the perfect choice to become Secretary of the Senate, which he served as from 1977 to 1981. In this role Stan became a very influential member of the Senate. He was never elected but many Senators used to affectionately refer to him as the 101st Senator or the third Senator from Montana.

After Stan left the Secretary of the Senate position, he continued to be involved in governmental affairs. He sat on the board for the Democratic Leadership Council in 1985. The DLC was instrumental in introducing then-Governor Bill Clinton in 1985 to a wider public. Stan represented the same ideals that Bill Clinton ran on in 1992. He wanted to find politicians that would represent a new energetic vitality in the Democratic Party as Bill Clinton promised to do.

In spite of Stan's own notoriety, he continued to value his Montana roots. In 1983, he founded the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation. The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation was a tribute to his former boss but to Montana as well. The foundation is part of Mansfield's legacy and the causes he advocated during his time in the Senate. The foundation sponsors exchanges, dialogues, and publications to create networks or partnerships between U.S. and Asian leaders. The foundation provides excellent educational opportunities through fellowships to Japan for government employees.

Throughout the early 1990s Stan continued political activism that had been the trademark of his life. In 1991, Stan founded a political consulting firm now known as Kimmitt, Senter, Coates and Weinfurter.

Stan brought to politics and his time in the Senate a strong sense of deep moral principles and convictions. He believed that government could and should be a force for good. Stan was very much the idealist and did not see bitter division in the Senate only as ideological disagreements. To Stan, the Senate was one big family with all the characteristics of a family.

Stan lived his political life by three principles: First was to hold true to your conviction; second, be grateful for what is given to you and the opportunities you are given; and third, never give up unless you can make it better. The other value Stan saw as important in his political life was ``to thine own self be true.''

Stan started his professional life as a public servant. It seems only fitting that the last day of his life he started the morning in the Senate cloakroom on the Democratic side talking with former colleagues and friends. That night he attended an event honoring retiring Louisiana Democratic Senator John Breaux. Stan died honoring a fellow colleague who shared his beliefs and deeply felt convictions. He died doing what he loved best, which was very appropriate, very fitting.

Stan, you will be deeply missed in the Senate, but you will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about legislation to rename the U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco after Judge James R. Browning. This legislation cleared Congress over the weekend. It is a long overdue honor for one of the Nation's finest public servants.

I would like to thank my Senate friends and colleagues for their hard work and support, particularly Senator Boxer, who sponsored the Browning courthouse naming legislation. I would also like to recognize and thank Senator Hatch and Senator Stevens. Their efforts were crucial in moving this legislation across the finish line in the 109th Congress.

Let me tell you about Judge James R. Browning. First, he is a great man

and a fine judge who has committed the better part of his life to promoting and improving the administration of justice. Montana is proud to call him one of their own, and I am proud to call him my friend.

Judge Browning was born in Great Falls, MT, just like another famous Montana son--former Senate Majority Leader and Ambassador to Japan, Mike Mansfield. Judge Browning grew up in the small town of Belt, MT, and married his high-school sweetheart Marie Rose from Belfry, MT. Judge Browning received his law degree from the University of Montana in 1941, graduating at the top of his class. He worked for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice before joining the U.S. Army where he served in Military Intelligence for 3 years, attaining the rank of first lieutenant and winning the Bronze Star.

After the war, he returned to the Justice Department, eventually rising through the ranks to become Executive Assistant to the Attorney General. In 1953, he entered private practice, leaving after 5 years to serve as the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court at the request of Chief Justice Earl Warren. In that position, he held the Bible during President John F. Kennedy's inauguration.

In 1961, President Kennedy named James Browning to be a Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Browning has served on that court with distinction and honor for more than 40 years, longer than any other judge in Ninth Circuit history. He was still working 6 days a week as an active federal judge when he turned 80 in 1998, and he did not take senior status until November of 2000. He has participated in nearly 1000 published appellate decisions.

Judge Browning was named chief judge of the Ninth Circuit in 1976. During his 12-year tenure as the chief judge, the Ninth Circuit expanded from 23 to 28 judges, eliminated its case backlog entirely, and reduced by half the time needed to decide appeals. He worked tirelessly to improve the administration of the courts, dramatically increasing the efficiency and productivity of the Ninth Circuit, all the while emphasizing collegiality and civility among his colleagues on the Ninth Circuit. Judge Browning's leadership and innovation sparked similar administrative reforms throughout the country.

Judge Browning is held in the highest regard by both bench and bar across California, in Montana, and within the Ninth Circuit legal community. His rich and distinguished career spans more than six decades--most of it spent in public service. We have finally recognized his long service to his country and the Ninth Circuit by renaming the U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco in his honor. It is a long way from Belt, MT, but Judge Browning never forgot his roots, and now neither will the Ninth Circuit that he helped to build.

Mr. President, I happen to be the ranking member, that is the most senior Democrat, on the Finance Committee. In years past, I was chairman of the Finance Committee when this side had the majority.

Yes, those were the halcyon days when this country was represented really well.

But I might say the provision we have been discussing; namely, the degree to which Members of Congress should have access to any American's income tax returns, is really an outgrowth of the Nixon years. That is, in the Watergate years, when too many Government officials had access to individuals' income tax returns and we enacted so-called Watergate reforms, one of the reforms was a section in the code which basically provides that no one in Congress has access to any American income tax return--as well they should not--except for the chairman of the Finance Committee and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committees that have jurisdiction over our tax laws.

Someone might ask, why should they have jurisdiction? Why should the chairman of the Finance Committee have the right to look into an individual's tax returns? That is a question that should be asked very seriously and it is one we should take very seriously.

But the reason that is in the law today is so the Finance Committee can exercise jurisdiction or proper oversight over our Tax Code, especially looking into how companies, maybe individuals but certainly companies, use the tax system to shelter their income--what do they do; how do they do it--so we in the Congress can enact legislation that closes those loopholes. That is what we have done.

Within the last couple of years, with the so-called Enron reforms as we looked at Enron's tax returns, we found a lot of provisions where actually the company was overstating assets in a certain area and understating in another, sheltering a lot of income, clearly not in the spirit of the income tax returns.

I might say, too, that, frankly, the Tax Code is so complex and the returns are so complex it is difficult for the enforcement agency, the IRS, to look at all of these shelters and to enforce the tax law.

As we know, a low percentage of tax returns are currently audited, and it is very difficult for the Joint Tax Committee because they do not have the resources to look at all of this.

The long and short of this is that we in the Finance Committee, the chairman of the Finance Committee and his staff, looked at income tax returns, including Enron, and we made appropriate deletions to protect proprietary interests. Nevertheless, we thought we should exercise that responsibility and we did, very carefully and professionally, and the result was not to use individual tax returns but, rather, closing a lot of loopholes of which companies, in this case Enron, were unfortunately taking advantage.

The current law also provides for civil and criminal penalties for any unauthorized disclosure by the chairman of the committee or authorized staff of any unauthorized information, which there well should be. If any of us were to divulge any of the information we might have, we go to jail, and we should.

The provision we are talking about here, that is, in this big appropriations bill right in front of me, basically says the chairmen of the Appropriations Committee, House and Senate, have the same authority, and that they can also exercise that authority and have access to income tax returns without any penalty whatsoever, no criminal penalties, no civil penalties, for any unauthorized disclosure.

Well, what does that mean? It does not take a rocket scientist to know that means anybody on the staff of the Appropriations Committee can just take that tax return information and can go to the press, can use it however they want on anybody, without any penalty. That is an outrage. Even in the dead of night, who would try to enact a provision like that? And that is what the majority has done very late at night.

My staff happened to find this provision several hours ago. I called them this morning to see what they found in the conference report. They said: We are still trying to download it. We divided it into different parts. We are not going to be able to go through it all until 5 o'clock today, not even see what is in this conference report until 5 today. That is about eight or nine people in my office, each downloading from the House Ways and Means Web site various portions of what is in this conference report.

I am informed that the House has gone out. I do not know if that is accurate, but I am informed the House has adjourned and that is highly, highly reprehensible. They passed this provision in the middle of the night, did not tell a soul, did not consult with the Finance Committee, did not consult with the House Ways and Means Committee. They certainly did not consult with the Finance Committee. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee found out about this a few hours ago and he is as upset as I am. The chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, I am told he did not even know this was in there until a couple of hours ago when he was informed about it. That is what I am told. He did not know it was in there. Come on.

It seems to me that the one resolution yet available is for the Senate to amend--it is a procedural motion here--the enrolling resolution, to strike that language and send it back to the House.

I have to figure out there is a way for the House to stay and meet. I am told they are just doing special orders or something like that. I am told they have not adjourned sine die. It is clear that if they want to change this, the House of Representatives can find a way to change it. They can find a way if they want to. If they do not, I have to reach one conclusion, they do not want to. They want to give the Appropriations Committee chairman this unfettered access to individual income tax returns and the ability to release it to anybody in the world without any punishment, without any civil penalties, without any criminal penalties.

I ask the House of Representatives, I ask the Speaker of the House, I ask the leadership of the majority party in this body, to find a way to get the House of Representatives to accept our resolution.

I have been told we will have a colloquy or we will take this up later. We all know what happens when we take things up later--it does not happen. Things have a way of getting lost. One has to strike when the iron is hot. The iron is really hot now.

When the American public hears about this--we can bet dollars to

donuts there is probably nobody in the press gallery right now because they are out writing their stories about this--we are going to hear about this and I would think that the majority party would like to nip this thing in the bud and get it done right now and not have it in the press for weeks and months because it is on the doorstep of the majority party of the House and the Senate. It is on their doorstep. If they want to change it and delete it, they can do that. If they do not want to change it or delete it, then they are not doing it.

Since I have been in this body, I cannot think--I am sure there are others but I cannot think of an outrage as reprehensible as this one. Can my colleagues believe it, unfettered access to individual tax returns which are supposed to be private income, that can be divulged to anybody without any sanctions? Come on. How can anybody even conceive of suggesting something like that? Somebody did it in the middle of the night, and I might say we still do not know what is in this legislation. As I said before, the chairman of the committee did not even know about it. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee did not know about it. They do now, and I call on them to do something about this to get this problem solved right now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I make note of a technical error in the drafting of the Wool Trust Fund, which was included in H.R.1047, the ``Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004.'' Section 4002, entitled ``Extension and Modification of Duty Suspension on Wool Products, Wool Research Fund, Wool Duty Refunds,'' extends the current Wool Trust Fund through December 31, 2007. The purpose of this provision is to extend the current program, as well as to provide grants to textile mills, for an additional 2 years beyond the current date of expiration, which is December 31, 2005. This fact is reflected in the conference report of H.R. 1047, in which the conferees observe that the House recedes to the Senate proposal ``so that all programs are extended by two years beyond the current date of expiration of the current programs.'' In other words, all provisions-- including all programs and all tariff reductions--are to be in effect through 2007.

Unfortunately, a drafting error occurs in section 4002(a)(5), entitled ``Fabrics of Combed Wool,'' and mistakenly terminates the extension of duty reductions, for the goods identified in that subsection, at the end of 2006, rather than 2007. This error is clearly and patently inconsistent with the expressed intention of the conferees to extend the program through 2007.

I urge the Members of the 109th Congress to correct this technical error, in order to allow the program to operate as clearly and expressly intended by the 108th Congress.

Mr. President, I don't see Senator Grassley, the chairman of the committee, in the Chamber. I expect him momentarily. In the meantime, I will say a few words with respect to the pending legislation.

I am pleased, frankly, that in the final days of the 108th Congress, the Senate is set to pass at long last the miscellaneous tariff bill. This bill reduces or eliminates tariffs on literally hundreds of products that U.S. companies use to make products in America. It is a collection of many bills too small to be considered independently, and, traditionally, Congress collects these inexpensive and noncontroversial bills together into one big omnibus bill which the Senate then passes by unanimous consent. That is our tradition in the Senate.

Unfortunately, that did not happen with this bill this time. For the first time in the history of the process, the House insisted we go to conference on the bill. Frankly, that is unfortunate. In the aggregate, the provisions of this bill represent a significant cost savings for U.S. manufacturers simply struggling to compete. We owe it to them to get the process back on track in the next Congress. I hope we can do that, and I promise to work very hard toward that end.

I wish to highlight two provisions in this bill in particular that will help my State of Montana remain competitive. One is a provision that eliminates the tariff on specialized components used by a Bozeman- based boot manufacturer called Schnee Shoes. This is a top-of-the-line company. They make the best boots for hunting. If a hunter goes out pheasant hunting, duck hunting, you buy Schnee. They are terrific. They produce first-class products. Eliminating the tariff will save them tens of thousands of dollars a year and allow them to keep good-paying jobs in Bozeman, MT.

The other provision improves the competitiveness of U.S. wool. We produce a lot of wool in Montana--$2 million a year. As other commodities and textiles, wool has faced an increasingly difficult marketplace over the past several years.

In response, U.S. wool growers adopted a positive approach to embrace world markets; that is, setting up a wool trust fund. Through the wool trust fund, first established in 2000, U.S. exports of wool have risen sixfold as a share of domestic production. This successful program of the wool trust fund is, unfortunately, scheduled to expire next year. But this bill renews the wool trust fund through the year 2007 and allows the United States and Montana wool growers to continue to compete.

I also want to speak about one other provision of this bill, normal trade relations with Laos, that I know has generated some controversy. I support granting normal trade relations to Laos. In the absence of normal trade relations, Laos is subject to average tariffs of 45 percent, with peaks of 60 to 90 percent for important Laotian products such as T-shirts and bamboo chairs.

In contrast, most U.S. trading partners, including Laotian competitors Burma, China, Cambodia, and Vietnam, face average tariffs of only 2.4 percent compared, again, with Laos of 45 percent.

Now, I know some of my colleagues oppose granting normal trade relations to Laos. They believe Laos must work harder on improving its human rights record before receiving normal trade relations. But normal trade relations, I must emphasize, is not a special privilege the United States grants only to certain countries, and it does not signify approval of a country's policies. It is not a free trade agreement or a preference program. Rather, it is the baseline economic relationship the United States has with virtually every other country in the world-- the baseline.

In fact, there are only three countries on Earth that do not have normal trade relations: Cuba, North Korea, and Laos, and Laos is the only one of the three that has full, normal diplomatic relations with the United States.

Laos has worked with the United States closely in accounting for U.S. prisoners of war and missing in action in Laos during the Vietnam war, supported U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Southeast Asia after 9/11, and has cooperated in a long-term bilateral counternarcotics program.

Granting normal trade relations to Laos could have a dramatic effect on improving the dismal economic conditions in that country. Laos has the

lowest life expectancy in Southeast Asia, and the highest fertility rate. It also has the highest adult illiteracy rate, particularly among women.

Cambodia, on the other hand, has created more than 200,000 jobs since the United States granted that country normal trade relations in 1996. My hope is that normal trade relations for Laos will have a similar effect. Granting normal trade relations to Laos will also create opportunities to open the society, improve human rights, improve religious freedom, and improve the rule of law.

That is why my good friend, Senator Grassley, and I have worked hard to pass normal trade relations for Laos, and why it is right to include it in this bill. I think it is time for us to remove an awkward legacy of the Vietnam war and grant normal trade relations to Laos.

This bill includes a long list of provisions that will help American competitiveness. We should bring debate on this bill to a close and pass this constructive measure. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote for cloture.

Mr. President, before I turn the floor over to my good friend, the chairman of our committee, I would like to thank several terrific staff members. I thank Everett Eissenstat and Zach Paulsen of the Republican staff who worked very hard to get this miscellaneous tariffs bill passed. Also, from the majority leader's staff, I thank Rohit Kumar and Andy Olson, two extremely able and very helpful people, who helped get these provisions into this bill. I also thank, on my staff, Sara Andrews, who really led the charge. She did a great job, assisted by John Gilliland, who is equally competent. That is an understatement. Both of them are just aces, and I am very proud of them. I thank them for their assistance.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a distinguished man and educator, Montana's 2004 Professor of the Year award winner, Dr. Harry Fritz.

Harry was born in the State of Maryland, but he graduated from Missoula County High School in Montana in 1956. He attended Dartmouth College to earn his bachelor of arts degree. Harry's relationship with the University of Montana, located in Missoula, began when he attended the university to get his master of arts degree.

After earning his Ph.D. from Washington University in St. Louis, Harry returned to the University of Montana, and that is where he has hung his hat ever since.

Harry is the chairman of the Department of History and a full-time professor at the University of Montana. He exemplifies the type of professor Montana has come to expect from its higher education community. He is a first-rate guy. He is just aces. He is an educator who meets the highest standards of professional excellence. And he is a student's teacher. He connects with students and draws them into our Nation's history.

I might say, I first met and knew Harry Fritz back about 1972, somewhere in there, when I was practicing law in Missoula, MT, and was running for the State legislature. Professor Fritz and a couple friends of ours would get together about every couple, three weeks and have pizza and beer. We called ourselves the ``Beer Committee,'' and Harry was head of the Beer Committee. It was a super bunch of friends. We would talk about the world's problems and service and what needed to be done for Montana and the Nation. It was, in many respects, the enthusiasm and knowledge of Harry Fritz that got me interested in public service. He is that kind of a guy.

I might also say, he has a wonderful sense of humor. He is a tall man. He looks a lot like Abe Lincoln. When he puts on his beard, he portrays Abraham Lincoln and performs little skits. As a history professor, he is able to bring President Lincoln and lots of other aspects surrounding President Lincoln into his classes at the University of Montana.

I might say, too, his classes are always the first to be fully subscribed. People want to go to Professor Fritz's history classes because he connects so much, he brings history to life so much, with a sense of humor, with compassion, and with insight and perception. It is no wonder he has been named Professor of the Year for 2004.

Many of us who know Harry also are reminded of all the ways he has served. He not only is a history professor, a terrific professor at that, but he also served in the State legislature in Montana in the Montana Senate and the Montana House. He wants to do what he can to serve the people of our State. His wife Nancy is equally active, equally dedicated to service. Nancy, too, was a representative in the Montana State legislature at one time. So they are people who exemplify the best of human nature; that is, serving people.

I have a view that the most noble human endeavor is service. It is service to community, it is service to church, it is service to friends, service in whatever way makes the most sense for each one of us. Many of us here believe that. That is why we are here. I certainly know that is why the Presiding Officer is here, who has so much believed in service in the various capacities that he has served his State and this Nation.

Harry Fritz is another who believes in service. I think it is important to honor and recognize people such as Harry, because the more Harry Fritzes there are in this country, in this world, by far, the more quickly we are going to solve some mutual problems.

I again pay my highest compliments to a wonderful friend, a terrific man, and one of the best professors any student could ever have, Professor Harry Fritz.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senate is here today to respond to the administration's request once again to increase the statutory limit on the Federal debt. More fundamentally, we are here in response to a warning. Like a proximity alert on an aircraft, the debt limit warns the Government is headed for a crash. We need to change course.

Unless we change course, the administration's fiscal policy will consign American families to a lower standard of living. Unless we change course, American workers will have lower incomes than they would otherwise have, and the dollars they earn will be worth less than they otherwise would have been worth.

Unless we change course, millions of Americans will live poorer lives. That is what we are really debating today when we debate the debt limit, and that is why I shall vote against the bill, to signal that we must change course.

Narrowly speaking today, we are considering the ceiling on Federal debt, the cap that the law places on borrowing by the Federal Government. The legislation before us would raise the debt ceiling to $8.184 trillion. It would increase the debt ceiling by $800 billion.

As this chart to my left shows, it will be the third largest increase in the history of the country. This chart indicates debt limit increases since 1982, and in roughly 1990, it was $915 billion, and then the highest was $984 billion, and this $800 billion is the third highest increase in the debt ceiling. Unfortunately, this large debt ceiling increase, and particularly the recent increases, are becoming all too common.

Just last year we were forced to raise the debt ceiling by a record $984 billion. Almost $1 trillion in additional Federal borrowing, that limit was raised in 1 year. In just the year before that, the debt ceiling had to be increased by $450 billion. That is more than $2.2 trillion in debt in just 3 years. In contrast, prior to those 3 years, there had been no increase in the debt ceiling for 5 years.

An increase of $800 billion of debt that is requested in this legislation before us means $2,700 more debt for every man, woman, and child in America, and a total of $8 trillion in total debt means about $25,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child. That is a $25,000 burden on each of us, our children, and our grandchildren.

I believe that each of us who runs for public office and serves has a moral obligation, and that obligation is to leave this place in as good a shape or better shape than we found it. It is that simple. As this President and this Congress keeps piling up more and more debt, clearly we are leaving this place in worse shape than we found it. We are putting a huge additional obligation and burden on our successors and upon, more importantly, the people we represent and, even more importantly, those who follow the people we represent. That is not the moral, correct thing to do. My judgment is that it is not only not responsible, it is irresponsible.

This chart shows per capita total Federal debt outstanding. This is per capita, on a per person basis in America. It has steadily been rising from 1997 from close to $20,000 to more than double, to $25,000 being asked for today.

Today's increase also will not be the end of large increases in the debt ceiling. It will not be the end because before the next year runs out, we will need to raise the debt ceiling once again.

The reason for these record increases in the debt ceiling is the record Federal budget deficits that our Government is running.

To clarify for those who may be unsure about the terminology here, the term ``deficits'' obviously means annual deficits that this Government runs, and the term ``debt'' means the accumulation of all the deficits. That is why the deficits sound a little less. It is some $400 billion, whereas the total publicly held debt is over $8 trillion.

I must add to this, I don't want to lay the blame totally in the hands of the President, but the President submits budgets to the Congress. Congress tends to work with the budgets that the President submits. Every year the President submits a budget and Congress does work around the edges, maybe add a little, subtract a little, but it is Presidents, not Congress, in the main, who actually determine the amount of either surplus or the amount of deficits that are actually enacted. It is primarily the Presidents.

Since the current administration took office, there have been record annual surpluses that have turned into record annual deficits. In the fiscal year 2001--that is the transition year between the two administrations--the Federal Government ran a surplus of $127 billion, a surplus. We actually ran a surplus of $127 billion in fiscal year 2001. For the next year, 2002, the first full fiscal year in the current administration, the Government ran a deficit--not a surplus but a deficit--of $158 billion. In the next fiscal year, the Federal Government ran a record deficit of $377 billion. Last year, in fiscal year 2004, there was yet another record deficit of $413 billion.

This chart basically outlines what I just said; namely, we start with a reduction in Federal debt. That is the total. Beginning about 2001 it starts skyrocketing back up again.

These record deficits are even more painful when they are compared with the record annual budget surpluses that preceded them. In fiscal year 1998,

the Government ran a surplus of $69 billion. This was a record budget surplus at the time and the first budget surplus since fiscal year 1969.

In fiscal year 1999, this was another record surplus, $126 billion. That was followed by yet a third record surplus of $236 billion in fiscal year 2000. So we had 3 years of growing surpluses. So in just 4 years, the Government has moved from a record surplus of $236 billion to a record deficit of $413 billion, which is quite a dramatic swing of about $650 billion in our annual Federal budget outcome just over a 4- year period of time.

That is why we are here today. That is why we have to, in a technical level, raise the debt ceiling. It is because we are running record budget deficits. It is that simple.

In contrast, when we were running budget surpluses, the Government was doing what it should do. It was beginning to pay off the debt held by the public. That is what took place the second half of the previous administration. So between 1998 and 2001, our Government paid off about $450 billion worth of debt. Indeed, when the current administration took office, there was serious talk that all debt held by the public would be paid off within about 10 years or so. I think we all remember that. Gosh, if we totally pay off our national debt--is that possible? People were saying it would be bad if we paid off our total national debt. But we were on the glidepath at that time, a few years ago, to pay off the national debt, and there was very serious talk about what would we do when we got down to zero national debt. How soon we forget.

What a sad turnaround we experienced. The turnaround can clearly be seen in this chart here which outlines the dramatic change. Our national debt was steadily coming down as we had annual deficits and we were using the deficits to pay off the national debt. That is what happened in 2001. Then in 2002 and 2003 and beyond it is just the opposite.

Is this going to continue, this trend? Unfortunately, if we are objective about this, I think the answer is yes. The President claims he will cut the deficit in half in 5 years. Indeed, Senator Kerry campaigned for the Presidency and said he would cut the deficit in half in 5 years. But I must say, to be totally candid, those estimates are a little rosy. That is not going to happen.

For example, the independent nonpartisan Concord Coalition projects a deficit of about $450 billion 5 years from now. That will be higher than last year's record. Don't forget the Concord Coalition is known by most Members of Congress as being a fair, objective, nonpartisan organization looking at these matters very closely and very fairly and accurately.

Ten years from now the Concord Coalition projects the deficit will be an astronomical $734 billion. The Concord Coalition says it is going to get worse, much worse, with each passing year and the total deficit, they say, for the next 10 years will be almost $5 trillion. That means the Federal borrowing for the public will be $5 trillion in 10 years, and the debt ceiling will have to be raised by $5 trillion as well just to accommodate that increase.

Some may ask, Does it matter if Federal Government borrowing increases by $5 trillion? Does it really matter? Mr. President, it does. It really matters.

When the Federal Government borrows money from the public, it threatens two bad results. First, the Federal borrowing could compete with borrowing by businesses and consumers. What does that mean? That means that interest rates would go up. They have to go up. They are competing for the supply of money. Borrowing by businesses for new investments would have to go down. Borrowing would have to go down, all things being equal, and with fewer business investments, economic growth would, therefore, decline relative to what it could be.

High interest rates are killers. High interest rates, more than almost anything else, are a drag on the economy. It really slows the economy down and could deepen any recession that might occur.

Conversely, very low interest rates help businesses borrow, help homeowners buy homes, et cetera. It is very good for economic growth. In addition, because of this crowding out effect, our future standard of living could be lower than otherwise it would be.

Moreover, the rise in interest rates caused by increased Federal borrowing would make household purchases by credit more expensive. The increased costs would cause households to have less purchasing power and, therefore, would have to buy less. You may have to postpone or maybe not be at all able to buy that new refrigerator, to buy that new stove, that TV set, whether it is a plasma TV or regular TV, whatever it might be. The increased cost would cause households to have much less purchasing power.

For example, an increase in mortgage rates of just 2 percentage points would increase home buyers' annual payments on a $200,000 home by about $1,700. Potential home buyers would decide whether to buy these homes or, in the alternative, reduce other purchases. In either case, the home buyer's standard of living would be lower.

The second bad outcome that the additional Federal borrowing could cause is that Americans would owe more to foreigners. Foreigners would increase their holdings of U.S. assets. What does this mean? This would lower our future standard of living, as the earnings from American assets would have to go to foreigners, not to Americans. Thus, when the Federal Government borrows more, the standard of living of the American families suffers. It is zero sum, axiomatic; it by definition has to happen.

There is another danger from added Federal borrowing as well. If foreigners, especially foreign central banks--that is the governments, foreign governments--buy a significant portion of our debt, our U.S. economy will be subject to serious jolts, particularly if these lenders decided to sell off that debt precipitously. At the very least, they will have a little hold on us as they increase their holdings of American Treasurys, American securities--which is what they buy mostly these days, partly because it is more liquid, which means they could get rid of them much more easily, more quickly. But they have a little hold on us, a little leverage on us in any trade negotiation, any political negotiation, any foreign policy negotiation with these countries. Whether it is China or Japan or wherever, there would be a little edge because this country might hint that, gee, maybe we might start pulling out our purchases, sell the U.S. Treasurys we have unless you Americans go along with something we want. I am not saying it will be a huge factor. It may be a huge factor. I am saying it will be a factor we would not want to have to deal with.

Suppose the U.S. dollar declines further. It has come down about 30 percent in the last couple of years against the Euro. When the Euro was first announced, the dollar was fairly strong compared to the Euro. Now it has fallen about 30 percent. As Federal debt and interest payments from our national debt are denominated in U.S. dollars, what happens? The value of those assets starts to drop. That is what is happening. The U.S. dollar, compared with other currencies, is starting to fall significantly.

What happens then? Foreigners, including foreign central banks, might be afraid the dollar will go further. That is the trend. It is going down. Why is it going down? Because of the huge deficits and debts. A little less confidence in America. The more it goes down, then central banks in other countries will ask, do they want their dollar- denominated assets, as U.S. Treasury, to decline further? Probably not. So what are they going to do about that? Sell. Sell before they fall. Once they start to sell, what happens? The fall is greater.

That is the danger we are facing. I am not saying this is actually going to happen. Nobody knows if this is going to happen. There is a school of thought that there is so much savings in the world this will not happen. But we all know it is getting more and more risky and more likely this will happen.

If we exercise a little common sense as we run our household, we know there comes a point we cannot continue to borrow. There comes a point when the bank says no. There comes a point when we have to be more responsible as a household. The same is true here. There comes a point when the bank says--in this case it is foreign banks, or in this case the taxpayers--Enough is enough.

We do not know there will be a huge, precipitous decline. We do not want there to be a precipitous, huge decline. If there is, we do not want to know when it is because we do not want it to happen, but we do know if we are irresponsible and turn a blind eye to all of this, it is much more likely to happen and we will pay the consequences and rue the day when we, at an earlier date, did not take the necessary steps to correct this.

There is a real danger that foreign banks, as they look at their hole card, may sell off some of the Federal debt they now hold. Half of the foreign holdings are held by central banks. That would cause a spike in interest rates. Why? Because as they begin to sell, what does the U.S. Government have to do? It has to raise interest rates to keep the companies in America securities. Raise interest rates, and we will have all the other consequences I mentioned earlier--higher mortgage interest rates, consumer interest rates go up, companies cannot borrow as much because the banks are charging them much more. This is not some fringe possibility; this is real.

Why do I say it is real? Why am I very concerned about this? Let me quote the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker. He said quite recently he thought there is a 75-percent chance of a currency crisis in the United States within 5 years. Those are odds we do not want to have to deal with.

One of the hardest things to do is managing economic affairs early before you get in real trouble. It is so easy to postpone and put off. It is a bit of an abstraction right now. We do not know what will happen. It does not hit Americans right in the gut. It is not like raising taxes or lowering taxes which people feel immediately in their household budgets. I can guarantee if these problems do occur, and all the evidence indicates it is very likely to occur unless we take some very serious steps today, it is going to hit Americans so hard in the gut, it will have such an impact on Americans that this country is going to have a very serious problem.

Something else we should consider is the international competitiveness we Americans face with other countries worldwide, irrespective of our current deficits and trade deficit--which is humongous, which we will have to pay for sooner rather than later--with other countries. Take China, for example. We graduate in the United States of America about 65,000 engineers a year. Engineers can build new products and help make America strong. Guess how many engineers China graduates each year. Over 300,000 yearly. Are they brighter or dumber than our engineers? No, they are smart, progressive young men and women. And they are hungry. For those who have been to China recently, it is stunning to see the degree to which the Chinese people are hungry. They are going to compete very aggressively on the world market.

We are in a sense almost fiddling while Rome is burning. That is, not only not paying attention to our fiscal problems but also not paying attention to the competitiveness we have around the world; that is, not making sure we have more trained engineers who can do better worldwide. We will find ourselves not too many years from now in a real pickle. I am saying, right now, start taking measures so we do not have huge problems we otherwise would have.

I mentioned earlier central banks, if this trend continues, might decide to change their holdings and Federal debt for political reasons. Not only economic, but also for political reasons. For example, a foreign government might be involved in a trade dispute with the United States. This foreign government would know it could roil markets for the U.S. Federal debt and U.S. economy if a central bank sold a large portion of its holdings of U.S. Federal debt. It knows that. So what does it do? That government or country might hint around or might threaten to sell off, roil international markets, with an adverse effect on U.S. currencies, undercutting the United States' position in that trade dispute.

At the end of September this year, foreigners held about $1.9 trillion of our debt, close to $2 trillion of the total. Japan alone held $720 billion. China was next with $174 billion. Moreover, of $1.9 trillion of total debt held by foreigners, foreign central banks held $1.1 trillion. That is significantly more than half owned and controlled by central government banks. That is the government banks in those countries which, therefore, are in a great position of control. Those total amounts are nearly double the totals of 3 years ago. This has accelerated dramatically, almost double, over the last 3 years. Total debt held by foreigners is now 43 percent of all debt held by the public. Pretty close to half of all our national debt is held by foreigners--not by Americans, but by foreigners--and foreign central banks hold a full 30 percent of all such debt, one-third.

That is significant. Before I got in the Government, I worked for the Securities and Exchange Commission and I can remember back then the controlling interest was 10 percent. We are talking about 30 percent here. That is much more than a controlling interest in an entity's financial position.

The forecast for future Federal deficits and borrowing does not look good. I must add, this is not the worst of it. It gets worse. President Bush, for example, has made it clear he wants to pursue a plan for partial privatization of Social Security. Under that plan, part of a worker's and employer's Social Security payroll taxes we divert into new private savings accounts for the workers. That sounds good, but what does that mean? That means there would be less revenue left in the Federal budget for other spending. The Federal Government would have to borrow more money to cover the difference. That adds even greater pressure on the Federal debt and greater upward pressure on interest rates.

For many of the various partial privatization plans being proposed, these revenue losses would not be small. They would be more than significant, between $150 and $200 billion a year in each of the next 10 years. The losses would be even larger in subsequent years. These revenue losses, these additional revenue losses, and the associated increases in interest costs on top of that, would raise annual deficits to previously unimaginable heights. For example, the annual deficit projected by the Concord Coalition for 10 years from now would rise to over $1 trillion. That is in addition. Federal debt would rise by an additional $2 to $3 trillion in the next 10 years to a total of about $7 to $8 trillion of new borrowing during that period. That is on top-- that is in addition--$8 trillion today, double in 10 years.

So we should take two lessons from this dismal picture. The first is we need to exercise true fiscal discipline. That is just common sense. Americans sit around that kitchen table very often--maybe it is weekly, maybe it is monthly--trying to make ends meet. Some cannot keep spending more than they take in each year. Most cannot. No one can continue that indefinitely because at some point the banks just won't lend people any more money. They will insist that existing loans be paid off.

We have bankruptcies. We have chapter 11. We have chapter 7. The point of all that is to stop the hemorrhaging, to pay off creditors to try to get the economic houses of Americans and companies back in order. I am not saying we have to declare bankruptcy. That would be something else, wouldn't it, if the United States of America declared chapter 11 and tried to reorder all the creditors. It is unimaginable, but if that were to happen, just think what would happen to the value of the dollar, what the value of the U.S. dollar would be then.

In the world of borrowing China and Japan now play the role of the banks. They are our bankers. They hold 30 percent of our debt and foreign individuals own another, what, roughly 23 percent of our debt. All of this will force the United States at some point to begin to live within its means--at some point. And it could happen suddenly.

Remember not too many years ago when the financial markets just collapsed. The first was in 1987, I remember, and the stock market just went whoosh. Back in the Asian currency crisis not too many years ago things went haywire immediately. The deck of cards totally collapsed. It doesn't take much, and it is usually unforeseeable. It is usually some little event which is not predictable but which happens which triggers this selloff and collapse.

We do not want that to happen, and it will not happen, it is less likely to

happen if we today begin constructing a path where we do live within our means. This increase in the national debt today obviously signals just the opposite. There is no plan at this point.

So I say we would be far better if we were to eliminate our annual deficits on our own rather than having foreigners force us to that point. We can take concrete steps to reduce our Federal budget deficits. We can enact tough but reasonable caps in spending, renewed each year, and we can institute a requirement that all new tax cuts and new permanent spending be fully paid for. We can do that if we have the common sense and if we have the moral courage to do so as we are expected to do by the people who elect us. We could do all this without resorting to gimmicks.

This town, this country, this Government has been full of too many gimmicks--the lockbox for Social Security. There are a lot of gimmicks this President has proposed. We have almost reached the end of our string of gimmicks. We have reached the point of reality. We have to do what is right. We can enact a tough requirement that new tax cuts and new permanent spending be fully paid for. That was in place actually, as you recall, from 1990 until the spring of 2003. This requirement helped the budget turn from deficit into surplus. We should restore that. We should restore that quickly.

The second lesson we need to learn is that we should not enact the partial privatization of Social Security. There are a number of important reasons to stay clear of this. For example, these plans would likely cut total retirement income for many beneficiaries, have the effect of cutting income, not increasing it. Even this lowered income would be subject to great risk in the private market. Social Security, it may not pay hugely but it is stable. It is there. You can count on it.

I know a lot of young people say it won't be there. I disagree with that. I say it is going to be there. Why do I say that? I say that because with each passing year there are more and more voters who are seniors. There are more and more people who are age 55 up to 60 who really care about Social Security. I have forgotten the exact date. I saw one estimate that by about the year 2030 half of all voters will be age 60 or over. I do not know if that estimate is true. It was made by a reputable person--I won't mention his name today but it is someone we all know who is quite reputable.

But in addition to that, partial privatization would dramatically increase Federal borrowing. It would increase annual Federal budget deficits and it would increase the Federal debt. This would further lower both our current and our future standard of living. It would also make the U.S. economy even more vulnerable to recession and it could put the U.S. Government in a vulnerable position, even more so in its relationships with foreign governments. These fiscal dangers alone are sufficient reason to reject the partial privatization of Social Security.

Clearly, we should look for new vehicles to increase savings. We should look for more ways to assure that our seniors are more secure in their retirement. We could bolster Social Security. We could find more private savings vehicles. We could help our pension system. But the partial privatization of Social Security will have the effect of lowering the benefits to those currently 50, 60, 62, or 63, unless there is a massive enough additional borrowing by the Federal Government. And that is the low estimate, $1 trillion over 10 years, and the higher estimate is $2 trillion. That is in addition.

I ask from where is that money going to come? Can we really borrow that much more compared to what we have already borrowed? We cannot.

So we need to respond to the debt limit. I started out saying really technically this is an increase in the debt limit, which is required by statute, but more fundamentally the issue being raised today is how much more can this Government go into hock? That is really the question. And how quickly can we get ourselves out of it?

We need to respond to the warning of the debt limit increase. We need to change course. We need to prevent that crash. We still have time. We should heed Paul Volcker's warning of a 75-percent chance of a currency crisis in the United States in 5 years. I think I know what he is talking about. He may not be right, but if Paul Volcker says that, we should listen. We should take his warning very seriously. We should, obviously, act with a sense of urgency and do what we can to avoid that dangerous result. We should change course now. We should wait no longer. With next year's budget, we have an opportunity.

The President, in his submission to Congress this January, February, whenever it is, in working with the Congress, can begin to chart a proper course, begin to chart a course or begin to actually honestly get our Federal budget deficit under control. We have that opportunity. We have that obligation. The time is now. The time is January when the President submits his budget and the next months when the Congress works with the President as we begin to get our Federal fiscal house in order.

We have to change course so American families can hope for a better standard of living in the future, so American workers can have good jobs with good incomes and we have a strong dollar with real value in the international trade. We need to change course to make all that happen so future generations of Americans lead richer lives.

I will end with the statement I mentioned in the beginning. We have a moral obligation to leave this place in as good shape or better than we found it. It is an obligation we have--I assert whether environmental matters, whether Federal budget--to inspire confidence and togetherness in our people. I urge us very much to take the course of action that we well know is correct.

Mr. President, I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, who is a real leader in the fight for fiscal responsibility.

Mr. President, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Senator from Wisconsin for his long-time concern about budget deficits. I can think of no one in the Senate who has been a more articulate advocate of getting our house in order.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

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

There is not a lot of time left on the debt limit for debate. I urge Senators who want to speak to come over now because, otherwise, I will yield back the remainder of our time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I see the Senator from Florida on the floor. I yield 5 minutes to him.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, such time as he might consume.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Iowa on the floor. Does he wish to speak now?

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

I yield the Senator 60 more seconds.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

I appreciate the discussion with the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from North Dakota.

I ask unanimous consent 20 minutes be reserved for the use of Senator Byrd when he is able to come to the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, not charged to the minority side but charged to the majority side.

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

Mr. President, I ask that all time be yielded back on both sides.

Mr. President, I ask for the vote and ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to the following fellow and interns of the Finance Committee staff during consideration of S. 2986, the debt limit bill: Mary Tuckerman, Priya Mahanti, Audrey Schultz, Brittney McClary, Kelsie Eggensperger, Paige Lester, Jeremy Sylestine, Jodi George, Janis Lazda, Chris Knopes, Scott Landes, and Cuong Huynh.