Floor Statements

Mr. President, I concur with my colleague that the integrity of the NAFTA panel system has been put into serious doubt as a result of the recent panel decision in the softwood lumber case. When NAFTA panels prevent appropriate enforcement of the U.S. trade laws, the public will cease supporting our participation in NAFTA. It is simply unacceptable for a NAFTA panel to dictate the outcome of an investigation to any U.S. court or agency. That is not the purpose of a NAFTA panel. Such authority was not granted by the U.S. Congress to the NAFTA, the WTO, or any other foreign organization.

Congress approved the NAFTA based on its understanding that effective trade remedies would not be eroded. Preservation of these remedies is essential to the overall process of opening foreign markets to imports of goods and services and to prevent harm to American industry and agriculture. Popular support for the principles of free trade and the NAFTA as a whole will be weakened if the dispute settlement system is continually misused to overturn legitimate agency decisions.

In my view, it is essential that future NAFTA panel decisions are carefully scrutinized by Congress. With respect to the seriously flawed NAFTA panel decision in the softwood lumber case, I believe the U.S. Government must pursue an Extraordinary Challenge Committee appeal in order to restore the rights of the American industry and its workers.

Mr. President, today I offer my congratulations to the men and women who operate the Boise Airport Traffic Control Tower, ATCT, on its being named the Regional Facility of the Year for 2003 by the FAA.

The Boise ATCT was rated outstanding and best among five other level- 8 facilities with the FAA Northwest mountain region. Each facility was evaluated in the categories of operational excellence, communications, employee development, external relations, resource management, human relations, professionalism, employee morale and customer service. Boise's outstanding facility handled 163,022 operations in 2003 with consistent, dedicated and superior service.

I am proud of these highly capable men and women, and proud to have them representing our State. I wish each of them continued success in serving the great State of Idaho, its citizens and the citizens of the Nation.

Mr. President, I am pleased by the education received by children in my home State of Idaho. Our teachers are caring, administrators are dedicated, and our schools are effective. The preparation for life and for further learning that I received in Idaho classrooms during my youth has served me well throughout the years

Today, I am especially pleased to honor Randy Jensen, the Principal of William Thomas Middle School in American Falls, ID, who has been selected as the National Secondary Principal of the Year. For nearly 20 years, Mr. Jensen has worked to make William Thomas a welcoming and supportive environment for students and staff. His commitment to communication, teamwork and proactive problem solving is well recognized by parents and members of the community, and has now been recognized by his colleagues at the national level.

Mr. Jensen correctly states that middle school is ``a tumultuous time in the lives of young people, so those of us who know and love them must be their advocates.'' Mr. Jensen has been just that: an effective advocate for Idaho students. It is altogether fitting that he should be recognized and honored. So today, I offer my congratulations and best wishes to Randy Jensen, National Secondary Principal of the Year.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge a very special event happening in Idaho on July 31. For my colleagues in the Senate who have never been to Boise, ID, I will describe a little of what that part of my State looks like.

On a clear day, miles stretch out before you bounded to the south by the Snake River Valley and distant mountains, to the east and west by a vast expanse of open sky, and behind you to the north, by foothills rising to meet their less-weathered relatives.

The wind blows with reassuring regularity, and it seems that in this western meeting place of land and sky, at once comfortingly familiar and awe-inspiring, it is indeed an appropriate place to rest our fallen warriors of freedom and pay our respects and tribute to their sacrifices.

The Idaho State Veteran's Cemetery represents the vision and hard work of many dedicated Idahoans. These men and women have focused their energy and donated their time and money to see this tremendous project to fruition. An idea that for many years was in the hearts of concerned patriots, the cemetery is the first of its kind to be built in Idaho, and its construction allows Idaho to finally join the rest in having a state veterans' cemetery.

Gazing out at this vista of the junction of earth and sky, and the visible freedom of wide open space causes us to reflect upon the freedom that our country stands for; the freedom for which the men and women who will rest here committed their lives, some ending either much too young in combat or others after fulfilling and long lives. In this time of sacrifice by yet another great generation of brave young men and women, this place gives comfort and exists as a testament to the age-old ritual of caring for those that have gone before us, in a proper and appropriate military manner that reflects their sacrifice, sense of duty and selfless devotion to the cause of liberty.

This place and the people for whom it is preserved remind us that freedom is eternal, and their and our living and dying are not in vain.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Department of

Defense, DOD, Peer-Review Prostate Cancer Research Program.

No one in this Chamber has been spared the tragedy of cancer taking the life of a family member or friend. Many of those lives, in fact, have been taken by prostate cancer, as it is the leading cause of cancer deaths in men. Because baby boomers are entering the risk age for prostate cancer at a rate of one every seven seconds, the 2 million men currently impacted by the disease are increasing at about every 8 percent per year. Still, lives can be saved and finding a cure can be accelerated.

The DOD Peer Review Prostate Cancer Research Program continues to prove to be a success and many new treatments to end the pain and suffering due to prostate cancer are on the horizon. That is why I support a $100 million earmark for fiscal year 2005.

The return on this investment is well worth it. In recent years, the DOD Breast Cancer Program funded groundbreaking research, such as the discovery of the drug Herceptin, which prolongs the lives of women afflicted with a particularly aggressive type of advanced breast cancer. In fact, Herceptin when used appropriately with chemotherapy increases the chances of survival by about 33 percent.

Those breakthroughs are possible in prostate cancer. This disease needs a Herceptin-like drug, and it is possible with adequate and fair funding for the DOD Peer Review Prostate Cancer Research Program.

This one-of-a-kind research program uses an innovative granting structure that brings scientists and consumers together to make key policy decisions about prostate cancer research. Since its inception eight years ago, this far-reaching, influential program has literally changed the way prostate cancer research is done. It has become a model that other research programs have sought to replicate.

The program has funded two key research grants, the Prostate Cancer Consortium Awards, which could help us unravel prostate cancer's challenge. These grants cover a 3-year period and are designed to produce an intervention--drug, device or procedure--to bring us all closer to finding a cure for this devastating disease.

This program is not only a shining example of streamlining effective research; it is an outstanding model for best business practices. Every penny spent by this program is accounted for at a public meeting every 2 years. Ninety percent of the funds go directly to research. This kind of efficiency and prudence in spending is unheard of in some of our Nation's best businesses and charities let alone other federally funded research programs and agencies.

According to reports of this business conscious program, the DOD Peer Review Prostate Cancer Research Program cannot conduct human clinical trials without the earmark funding of $100 million for fiscal year 2005. The program must help treat men, not just mice.

Unfortunately, the language in the Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 threatens both the funding and unique structure of the Prostate Cancer Peer Review Research Program. The Senate bill combines all of the congressionally directed cancer research programs into one account and reduces the total funding available to all.

Because the Senate version lumps all the cancer programs into one pot, rather than maintaining separate earmarks, the proposal will have multiple, negative outcomes. As written, the Senate bill dismantles the unique accountability over research and seriously threatens the consumer-scientist driven integrity of the DOD prostate cancer research program. The proposal relieves the government of accountability while forcing cancer groups to compete with one another for reduced funding. And, a particularly dangerous component of the proposal transfers funding to other cancer projects that are not recommended by a scientific peer reviewed process

As the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 goes to conference, I urge my colleagues to support the language passed in the House and preserve this critical program for prostate cancer research.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 580, S. 2507.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cochran amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Milk Forward Contracting Act, a bill to make permanent the dairy forward pricing pilot program.

Without question, dairy producers are subject to a very fickle dairy market. Dairy prices can go from all time highs to all time lows over a course of a year, making long-term planning extremely difficult. This legislation will ensure the continued availability of an important risk management tool for dairy producers and enable their long-term business planning.

Over the pat 4 years, dairy producers and processors have been able to voluntarily enter into agreements for the sale of a specific volume of milk for a set price over an established period of time trough the dairy forward pricing pilot program. Many producers in my home State of Idaho and nationwide have used this voluntary program to reduce marketing risk by securing stable prices. Unfortunately, this program expires in December of 2004, and dairy producers want to be able to continue to utilize this program.

Forward contracting is a very useful tool for dairy farmers. In fact, a 2002 U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA report to Congress demonstrated that the program has been effective in reducing price volatility. According to USDA data for the September 2000 through December 2002 period, contracted milk averages $14.06 per hundredweight with a range of $1.63 between high and low prices, while non-contracted milk averaged $13.68 per hundredweight with a range of $6.69. Additionally, the U.S. General Accounting Office GAO reported that forward contracting is a risk management tool most frequently used by producers of other farm commodities.

Likewise, dairy producers should also have access to this important tool. There is no reason that dairy farmers should be forced to ride a dairy price roller coaster, when the extension of this sensible program would provide farm families with an option to help plan for their futures.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment. I appreciate the hard work of all those involved as we have negotiated these very important issues to the Nation, particularly to the States of South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington.

When we put together the South Carolina language last week and debated it in the Senate, there was a question raised whether that would cause any impact with regard to agreements that had been reached or to negotiations that were underway between the State of Idaho and the Department of Energy and Washington and the Department of Energy.

This amendment makes it very clear that there is no precedent value of the South Carolina language that would impact or in any way alter or amend the agreements of the State of Idaho and the State of Washington that they have with the Department of Energy, or create any precedent for any negotiations now underway between those two States.

The language says that nothing in the section shall alter, affect, or modify the full implementation, and it lists the various agreements for Idaho, most important of which is the Batt agreement.

Then it says:

(2) Nothing in this section establishes any precedent or is

binding on the State of Idaho, the State of Washington, the

State of Oregon, or any other State for the management,

storage, treatment, and disposition of radioactive and

hazardous materials.

It is very clear by statutory language now--if it was not already clear before, which we believe it was--that the South Carolina agreement stands by itself. The States of Idaho, Washington, and all other States will be free to negotiate their own arrangements and relationships with the Department of Energy.

Again, I thank Senator Craig, Senator Alexander, and Senator Graham for working so closely with me. Senator Cantwell from Washington has worked closely with us on this issue. I appreciate everyone coming together with a strong resolution to resolve these critical issues.

Mr. President, I am in anticipation of a special event in my home State of Idaho. On Sunday, June 20, the Ashley Inn in Cascade, ID will dedicate Kerby Gardens on their property. For those in Idaho, particularly those in Valley County, memorializing Lt. William Paul Kerby is an important occasion that represents a man, and a generation.

Lt. William Paul Kerby deserves America's appreciation. As Valley County's first serviceman to lose his life in World War II, he displayed the selfless sacrifice of a true American. It is his dedication that Kerby Gardens hopes to honor--a spirit of sacrifice that has defined our country and the State of Idaho since its beginning and continues to do so today.

Lt. Kerby was one of over 1,700 Idahoans who never returned from the battlefield in that great and terrible war. It is to these men that we owe our freedom today. There is still no other event in modern history that so transformed our world as did the Second World War. It brought out the best in our Nation and proved the courage of an entire generation, one that has been called ``The Great Generation.'' It is the courage and sacrifice of those veterans, men including Lt. William Kerby, that this garden remembers and honors.

In commemorating the dedication of Kerby Gardens, I would like to recognize, honor and thank Lt. Kerby and all of Idaho's veterans for their sacrifices. In World War II, as in other conflicts, America's servicemen and women have demonstrated the values and ideals our country holds dear. For their successes and their sacrifices, we are eternally grateful.

Mr. President, it is with tremendous gratitude today that I wish to honor Colonel Edgar F. Woodward Jr. for his dedicated service to our country in the Armed Services. Too often we forget the extreme sacrifice involved in keeping our great Nation

free. Colonel Woodward's character reflects this sacrifice and the steadfast resolve so many of our veterans maintain in the preservation of freedom. Allow me a moment to tell you about him.

Colonel Woodward joined the United States Air Force in 1941. Shortly after enlisting, he was called to arms in the European campaign of World War II. Colonel Woodward quickly earned the rank of captain flying B-17 bombers. During his 13th mission flying under the 100th Bomb Group, he was shot down and injured. He received a Purple Heart for these actions.

Colonel Woodward's relentless service to our country does not end here. In addition to his contributions in World War II, Colonel Woodward continued to serve through times of peril. From 1952-1954 he flew in the Korean war. From 1966-1967, he served in intelligence and strategic planning during the Vietnam war. In 1971, after 30 years of service, Edgar F. Woodward Jr. retired as a United States Air Force colonel.

I commend Colonel Woodward for his diligent service. His decision to serve our country places him in my highest esteem, and today I honor him.

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

That is correct, Mr. President.

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

For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to amend my own amendment, which is at the desk, in the form of an amendment which we have presented to the other side.

Mr. President, I want to weigh in on this issue and try to bring clarity to what it comes down to. As has been said by virtually every speaker today, this issue was caused as a result of the outcome of a lawsuit in Idaho with regard to the authority and jurisdiction and prerogatives of the Department of Energy in managing high-level waste as a result of reprocessing.

When the court case came down the way it did, it threw into question the manner in which the Department of Energy would proceed with its cleanup operations in three States--Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina. There are people on all sides of that issue. Some say it is clear what they have to do. There are those who say it is unclear. There are those who say we can find clarity if we take some time to work it through between the States and the DOE.

The bottom line is there was an issue. As a result of this issue, the question of funding availability for the ongoing cleanup became paramount. It was the DOE's position, as taken by the Office of Management and Budget, that if we didn't have a clear path forward on these cleanups, approximately $350 million that would have been available and was authorized and appropriated for cleanup in these three States would not be available in the next year. So the first urgent hurdle that came up was we had to make clear that the cleanup had to go on while we are trying to resolve these issues.

The second issue that came up is, how do we resolve them? In that context, the Senator from South Carolina is exactly correct. Each of the three involved States--Idaho, my State; his State, South Carolina; and the State of Washington--got involved in negotiating with the Department of Energy. In fact, in the beginning, there was some concern from the States, as to whether they were going to be allowed to be engaged in these negotiations, and Senator Craig and I, from Idaho, and the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, made it clear we would take no steps that our States did not authorize and approve. We actually provided the incentive for these negotiations to take place.

As we began moving forward, a dynamic developed where it became evident that the State of South Carolina, because of differences in the State of South Carolina's issues, was going to make it through to and reach an agreement with the Department of Energy. This agreement, as has already been indicated, is one supported by the Governor of South Carolina, the attorney general, the applicable environmental regulator, and many others in the State whose input the Senator from South Carolina has brought forth as part of the record.

The States of Washington and Idaho, however, were not able to reach an agreement. Then we came forward and this bill came to the floor, and we have now found ourselves here with the State of South Carolina having an agreement, and the States of Idaho and Washington not having an agreement, and the question as to the money.

A very important issue that seems to have immediately passed in the debate today is what happened in the beginning of the debate. Today, my amendment and the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, joined in by Senator Craig, were passed with a voice vote. Those amendments did a very critical and important thing. They made it clear the authorized cleanup dollars, the $350 million, were going to largely be able to be made available for continuing operations while we continue to try to work out these negotiations. I think that is a big part of the story today that needs to be made clear, because a big success for the country has been achieved already through those amendments.

Secondly, we are now dealing with the question of the South Carolina language. When you boil down the debate today, it comes down to a question we have been focusing on in Idaho. And that is, does the South Carolina language create a precedent or some kind of a pressure which would cause us to have to deal with this issue in the State of Idaho or the State of Washington any differently?

The answer to that is simply no. In fact, I think if there is any precedent in what is happening in this dynamic today, it is the opposite, because the State of Idaho, Senator Craig, and I made it very clear to the committee, to the Department of Energy, and to everyone-- and Senator Graham of South Carolina joined us in making it clear-- there would be no language in this bill relating to the State of Idaho unless and until the State of Idaho agreed to such language and Idaho's Senators brought that language forward. That is why we have very clear language in the bill that says the language that deals

with South Carolina deals with South Carolina only.

Having said that, there still has been a debate promulgated around the country, and it is raging in Idaho with regard to this very issue. Is there any precedential value in the South Carolina language that would cause a threat to any other State, particularly Idaho or Washington?

Senator Craig and I strongly believe the answer to that is no, but there is a question about it. Idaho's Governor, Governor Kempthorne, has been quoted on this floor as raising the question. So Senator Craig and I, working with the Senator from South Carolina and other Senators, decided we would make it ironclad clear, if it was not so clear already.

This morning, before this whole debate began, I asked unanimous consent to bring a further amendment that would have made it crystal clear, if it is not already crystal clear, that there is no precedential value here. Let me say before I go through what this amendment is, we believe it was crystal clear already in the statutory language, and Senator Graham, Senator Craig, and I and others have made it clear in the record developed in the debate on this bill that there is no precedential impact of this language because each State is dealing with its own circumstances and working out its own solutions with the Department of Energy.

Having said that, here is the language, frankly, we were not given unanimous consent to put into the bill this morning. The language would have said:

Nothing in this section shall alter or jeopardize the full

implementation of the settlement agreement entered into by

the United States with the State of Idaho. . . .

And then there is a description of that agreement.

Or the Hanford Federal facility agreement and consent

order, or the Federal facility agreement with the State of

Idaho.

Furthermore, nothing in this section establishes any

precedent or is binding on the States of Idaho, Washington,

or any other State for the management, storage, treatment,

and disposition of radioactive and hazardous materials.

We were stopped this morning from getting unanimous consent--I still do not understand why--we were stopped this morning from getting unanimous consent to put this amendment into the amendment we adopted earlier dealing with the funding stream. That is not going to stop us from moving this language in an amendment and putting it on the bill to make it very clear to anybody who still has any doubt that there is no intention here of creating any kind of precedent or pressure with regard to any other State.

I want to make it very clear we have now provided this language to the desk in the form of an amendment. That amendment will immediately follow the action on this vote with regard to the amendment of the Senator from Washington. Presuming that we still have an opportunity because of the vote, we will proceed with this amendment to make it very clear to anybody who has any lingering doubts that this Congress has no intention and this statutory language is not intended to create any precedential pressure or value, whether it be in court or in legislative negotiations, with regard to how Idaho, Washington, or, frankly, any other State will negotiate with the Department of Energy.

It should be absolutely ironclad clear already, but Senator Craig and I worked with our Governor, and he is supportive of this effort to resolve this issue, and we are going to make it very clear to the Nation that this debate over whether there is some precedential value here is simply a debate that is contrived to object to allowing South Carolina to reach its own solution.

It seems to me as we approach this issue, we must recognize that nothing will happen with regard to the management of radioactive material in the States of Idaho or Washington or, frankly, South Carolina, for that matter, unless and until those States agree. That is why Senator Craig and I have been on this floor advocating States rights and why we will continue to do so.

Senator Craig and I have made a very strong, a very clear position to the administration and to this Congress, which is that our Idaho agreement--which, by the way, was entered into in 1995 and ratified by this Congress--will not be weakened or altered or modified, and that no agreement will be reached on these management issues regarding radioactive materials and hazardous waste unless and until the State of Idaho agrees to that solution. Those two principles are hard rock, base positions Senator Craig and I have made very clear.

Like I say, if there is any question about what the precedent of these proceedings means, the precedent is that Senator Craig and I will not allow--we will not allow--this Congress to move forward with these kinds of issues.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Building room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Henry W. Saad to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit

II. Legislation

S. 1735, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003 [Hatch, Feinstein, Grassley, Graham, Chambliss, Cornyn, Schumer, Biden];

S. 1635, A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure the integrity of the L-1 visa for intracompany transferees [Chambliss];

S. 1129, Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 [Feinstein, DeWine, Feingold, Kennedy, Leahy, Specter, Edwards, Durbin, Kohl, Schumer];

S. 2013, Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act of 2004 [Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl];

S. 1887, A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient limitation on prescribing drug addiction treatments by medical practitioners in group practices Act of 2003 [Hatch, Levin, Biden];

S. 2363, A bill to review and extend the Boys and Girls Clubs of America Act of 2004 [Hatch, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl, Biden];

S. Con. Res. 5, A concurrent resolution expressing the support for the celebration in 2004 of the 150th anniversary of the Grand Excursion of 1854 Act of 2003 [Grassley, Durbin, Kohl, Feingold];

S.J. Res. 4, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States Act of 2003 [Hatch, Feinstein, Sessions, DeWine, Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, Chambliss, Specter];

S. 1700, Advancing Justice though DNA Technology Act of 2003 [Hatch, Leahy, Biden, Specter, DeWine, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Kohl, Edwards];

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, June 3, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. on ``The Child Custody Protection Act: Protecting Parents' Rights and Children's Lives'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. The witness list is attached.

Panel I: The Honorable John Ensign, United States Senator [R-NV].

Panel II: Mr. John C. Harrison, Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA; Mr. Peter J. Rubin, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC; and Ms. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis, MN.

Panel III: Ms. Joyce Farley, Victim, Dushore, PA; Ms. Crystal Lane, Victim, Dushore, PA; and the Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, St. David's Episcopal Church, Pepperell, MA.

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