Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I honor North Idaho College's student newspaper The Sentinel for over 70 years of exceptional journalism. Since the 1930s, North Idaho College has published a student newspaper in Coeur d'Alene. The Sentinel has a remarkable record of honors, including the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award, in addition to several regional and national first place awards in various competitions. It is perhaps the newspaper's most recent awards that demonstrate most clearly the tremendous passion and dedication to excellence that exists at the Sentinel.

At this year's Society of Professional Journalists' national convention, The Sentinel received first place in general excellence for nondaily newspapers, and first place in the online newspaper category. In both competitions, North Idaho College, a 2-year school, was chosen over 4-year schools with much larger enrollments.

North Idaho College, former Sentinel Managing Editors Betsy Dalessio and Jerry Manter, advisor Nils Rosdahl, and all members of The Sentinel staff past and present are to be commended for their hard work in creating a newspaper of distinction. They, along with all of the citizens of the State of Idaho, can be proud of North Idaho College's award-winning student newspaper, The Sentinel.

Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for your efforts, and those of the subcommittee ranking member, Senator Reid, in working with Senator Craig and me to support the important work of the U.S. Corps of Engineers in the Clearwater River Valley to mitigate damages caused by fluctuating levels in the Dworshak Reservoir.

As my colleagues know, the challenges of responding to the riverine needs of endangered salmon have been an enormous strain on the communities of the Pacific Northwest. We all share the commitment to restore Pacific Northwest salmon. This is a national interest. However, the efforts to restore the runs have a disproportionate and direct impact in communities in Idaho and the Pacific Northwest.

The town of Orofino in the Clearwater River Valley of Idaho is just such a community. The town sits at the base of the Dworshak Reservoir, which is capped by a Corps-managed dam. The Corps periodically uses water from Dworshak Reservoir to help adjust temperatures in the downstream rivers when salmon are making their runs to and from the ocean.

When spills are required, the levels of Dworshak Reservoir fall. Sometimes, this can amount to drops of approximately 90 feet. A 90-foot drop is catastrophic to recreational opportunities provided by the reservoir. Boat docks and trailer ramps no longer reach the water, beaches dangle precariously above the waterline, and muddy banks exposed for as far as the eye can see.

The Corps has offered its help in mitigating the economic hardships caused by its actions in periodic reductions in reservoir water levels. I applaud that offer. I also commend Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for providing the extra resources in the operations and maintenance account for the Dworshak Reservoir in this legislation to accommodate those mitigation efforts. I yield to the distinguished chairman to elaborate on that point.

I thank the chairman, and I yield back the floor.

section 104

Madam President, I offer congratulations to the Idaho Mining Association on its 100th anniversary. The mining industry has long been an economic force in Idaho, which is nicknamed the Gem State, and the association has been a strong advocate for that industry.

The association held its first meeting in the summer of 1903, and was first known as the Idaho Prospectors and Operators. The occasion of the meeting was an urgent invitation from the Governor of Missouri to Idaho Governor Frank R. Gooding that Idaho furnish a display of mineral products for the 1904 International Exposition in St. Louis. Ten years later, this group changed its name to the Idaho Mining Association and has operated continuously since.

Early records of the group clearly state its original purpose:

It is imperative that there be a better understanding on

the part of the people generally, and of those who enact and

administer our laws particularly; that the economy of our

nation, the happiness and welfare of our people, the safety

of the Republic itself depend upon a healthy mineral

industry.

The importance of minerals in our lives and to our economy has not diminished over the past century. The price and availability of raw materials are critically important to our manufacturing industries. The computer, telecommunication and electronic industries that represent an ever-growing share of our economic output, and dominate our daily lives, wouldn't be possible without the vast array of minerals produced in this country. We even rely on minerals to produce the new equipment that enhances the productivity of the nation's workers. It remains essential that we, as ``those who enact and administer our laws,'' continue to recognize the importance of our domestic mining industry.

Once again, my congratulations to the Idaho Mining Association and its members as they mark this important milestone. I send my very best wishes for its continued success in serving the best interests of the State of Idaho and the nation.

Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation to John Alexander Anderson, my senior policy advisor. John has been an important member of my staff. His counsel and efforts will be missed.

As my senior advisor on banking, finance, trade, and transportation issues, John managed policy initiatives and assisted me on numerous legislative accomplishments. He was also my liaison to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

John has been a tireless advocate for policies that promote economic growth, sound government, and financial deregulation. He has a keen comprehension of banking law and understands its impact on markets, investments, and business decisions. He has helped me fight numerous unsound financial initiatives, such as our recent success in protecting derivatives products from unnecessary Federal regulation. He has always been a critical advocate of good policy, including lowering Federal taxes and implementing market-opening trade agreements.

Prior to joining my staff, John served as a legislative assistant to Representative Jack Metcalf of Washington. Before his tenure with Congressman Metcalf, John worked for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Beyond his professional qualifications, John has an astute political sense and outstanding personal qualities. His loyalty, intellectual independence, talent for reaching consensus and his tactical ability to realize desired outcomes are all characteristics recognized and admired by his peers. He shares my political philosophy and commitment to the principles of limited government and open markets. John proves that the old tag line--better government through better people--is still on the mark.

It is rewarding to see John embrace a new challenge with the leadership and integrity that he demonstrated as a member of my staff. As he enters a new phase, I know my Senate colleagues will join me in acknowledging John's dedicated service as a congressional staffer and wish him every success in his future role. I will miss his counsel but I know John will remain a valued friend and advisor.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer congratulations to the Owyhee Cattlemen's Association on its 125th year celebration. This makes this organization the oldest cattle group in my home State of Idaho. From the original Owyhee Cattle and Horse Growers Association, which formed in 1878 to protect livestock from rustlers and Indians, to the association's present influential position on property rights, water rights, and grazing matters, it has been an effectively involved force in Idaho.

The Owyhee Cattlemen's Association has benefited from a long line of top-notch leaders, and it continues to be instrumental in representing the cattle industry in a variety of issue areas including rangeland monitoring, species issues, and environmental concerns. These are all far different from cattle rustling activities, but perhaps similar in economic effects on the cattle industry.

The association has also played a leading and pioneering role in negotiating agreements and initiatives that work towards the future viability and profitability of the entire grazing community. I particularly appreciate that it has recognized the strength of collaborative efforts in dealing with the multiple interest groups that are becoming stakeholders and hopefully partners in public land stewardship.

The past strength and resolve of the Owyhee Cattleman's Association has served the cattle industry well, and will continue to ensure its place at the

discussions of future issues, as we advance into the next 100 years of public land grazing.

Once again, my congratulations to the Owyhee Cattlemen's Association and its members as it marks a milestone anniversary. It has an unprecedented history of accomplishments in the cattle industry. I send my very best wishes for its continued success in serving the Owyhee County constituent base and the entire Nation.

Mr. President, Idaho faces grim news this morning as the deaths of two young wildland firefighters are reported. They were killed late Tuesday afternoon while fighting the Cramer fire in the Salmon-Challis National Forest west of the town of Salmon near the confluence of the middle fork of the Salmon River and the main Salmon. These men are heroes of battle, just as the men and women fighting overseas. They fought a faceless, terrifying enemy with bravery, heroism, and selfless dedication to the families and communities of central Idaho. Their sacrifice will be remembered for years to come as their names are added to the list of those fallen in service to their country in the capacity of wildland firefighters. I pray that those who continue to fight fires in Idaho and across the West this summer remain out of harm's way as they perform their valiant and critical work to preserve homes, property, and life.

The tragedy is that two more people have died. We hope it is not followed by more as we enter another fire season. The truth is that our forests are overgrown, dead and dying, and this kind of tragedy was inevitable. Legislation that I supported in the past would have made a difference. Had it been enacted last year or the year before, these senseless deaths could very well have been avoided. Idaho's wildfire season is just getting into its full swing, and we are asking our wildland firefighters in Idaho and throughout the rest of the Nation to do a dangerous job. We in Congress owe it to them and to the family members of those who didn't make it to provide them with the tools necessary to get the job done as safely and quickly as possible. These deaths are a tragic reminder of the sacrifices and risks wildland firefighters make to ensure the safety of our communities. Congress must act to reduce this threat to our communities and improve the safety of our firefighters. Today, Senator Lincoln and I are introducing bipartisan legislation to address the forest health crisis facing our nation.

As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, Senator Lincoln and I have learned of the similarities between the problems facing

the ecosystems of eastern and western forests. We know that when Congress acts to address the health of forests in the West--forests that have been devastated by fires that garner national attention--we must also reduce the risks to our forests across the country. The threat is not just to our property and lives, but clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat. We must take a comprehensive approach to protecting our resources, and Senator Lincoln and I attempt to do that in this bill.

The America's Healthy Forests Restoration and Research Act builds on the bipartisan legislation that passed the House of Representatives and is now under consideration in the Senate.

Like the House proposal, our bill addresses the ``analysis paralysis'' that prevents us from taking actions to protect our lands. For lands that are at risk of catastrophic fire or that have been severely damaged by insect or disease infestations or the aftermath of severe weather events, such as windthrow or ice storms, the bill creates an expedited process to allow for treatment. For these specific projects on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands--with the exception of lands that are wilderness areas or Wilderness Study Areas--the bill provides for time limits on appeals, reforms the appeals process, and provides guidance to the courts.

The per-acre costs of fuel reduction projects is higher and the amount of time to consider a project is longer with each alternative the agencies are required to consider. Each of these alternatives requires a complete and thorough environmental analysis. By selecting projects through the collaborative process and requiring an in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts of the specific project, we can ensure that the impacts of the project are addressed, without the analysis paralysis caused by the examination of additional alternatives--especially when projects are most often appealed based on failure to complete adequate analysis on alternatives rather than the substance of the project.

The time for action is now, we should not let fuels reduction projects be delayed or lose their effectiveness through frivolous appeals. By requiring the Forest Service to develop a new process that allows for public collaboration, by requiring substantive comments to the project, and by requiring participation in the process before allowing litigation, the bill ensures that public comment is meaningful and constructive. No longer will these important projects be stopped simply by 33 cents on a postcard.

Our bill also requires that the courts balance the long term effects with the short term effects of a project. This balance of harm should be common sense, but that has not been the case. The courts are reminded they should balance the impact of inaction in their decision making.

This streamlining of the appeals and judicial review process will counter the growing use of appeals and litigation as delaying and frustrating techniques rather than the constructive recourse they were intended for. Cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and ensuring for robust public participation--as outlined in the widely-supported Western Governors Association's collaborative strategy--is a win-win for our forests and our communities. In addition, by streamlining the process, we get more money on the ground and in action to protect our forests. Appeals, litigation, and extensive analysis of unneeded alternatives mean less money for projects. Some estimate that only sixty percent of funds allocated for fuels reduction actually makes it to the ground. Streamlining the process should result in significantly more resources to address forest health.

I have long been an advocate of better utilization of biomass and small diameter materials. This bill addresses the need for more research and more markets. Our bi-partisan bill provides grants to those who would use biomass for fuel or other beneficial purposes. Instead of leaving fuels in our forests to burn or tossing them in landfills, we can reduce the risks to our environment and create an incentive to use what has traditionally not been cost effective to use. Unlike the house bill, we expand eligible uses beyond just useful fuels. In Idaho, we have companies that can use this material for environmental restoration. We need to do more to create incentives to use this material.

To that end, our bill also includes expanded research into utilization and harvesting of small diameter materials. Light on the land techniques that find more and better uses of biomass and small diameter materials can revitalize our rural communities. Research into the costs and obstacles to using these materials will go a long way toward expanded markets and rural development. The bill also provides direction for technology transfer to get this information from the universities and scientists to the communities and small businesses in rural parts of America.

Our bipartisan bill makes research a central tenet. From research into biomass, forests conditions, upland hardwoods, the measure brings a new focus to forest threats. Our legislation expands the research to allow for landscape level research on forest-damaging agents. Fire, insects and disease, and weather events pose a significant threat to our forest ecosystems. The bill provides for cooperation with colleges and universities in applied research to combat these threats.

The bill also focuses research on preserving upland hardwoods. Not enough is known about preserving and restoring the upland hardwood forests of the South. The creation of an upland hardwood forest research center will go a long way toward finding ways to better protect, rehabilitate, restore, and utilize these important resources.

The proposal includes a watershed program that will help foresters enhance water quality in our forests. As many know, our forests serve as critical watersheds that provide drinking water to our communities. This bill provides for grants to allow for technical assistance, education, and financial assistance to enhance our efforts to ensure clean waters for our communities and wildlife.

A program to maintain forested habitat for threatened and endangered species is also an important part of this legislation. By providing for short and long-term restoration agreements the program offers incentives to maintain and utilize efforts that protect species and prevent others from being listed.

The legislation provides assistance to address the problem of nonnative invasive plants, trees, shrubs, and vines. Across the country, the expansion of nonnative invasive plants has changed ecosystems making them more susceptible to threats that could result in catastrophic fires. Our proposal provides assistance to landowners in addressing these invasives.

Finally, the bill declares that the enhanced community fire protection program is an important program in reducing risks to communities. This program, which we enacted as part of the 2002 Farm Bill, provides assistance to communities in reducing fire threats. Providing funding for this program, coupled with the savings from streamlining the process, will provide for meaningful progress in reducing the wildfire threat.

I agree with Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, who says we need to move the focus from what we take to what we leave. As he has identified, too many are looking at this as a zero-sum game. They seek someone to blame for forest health problems or argue that logging is inherently bad. We need to get beyond that fallacious argument and realize that what is important is restoring a healthy ecosystem: an ecosystem that allows for a natural fire regime to exist without threatening our communities and lives.

I hope my colleagues will join me moving beyond the narrow focus that currently passes for forest policy, this zero-sum game, and look at the needs of our forest ecosystems. This bill is a bipartisan effort that enhances the House-passed legislation. It sets a mark that the majority of the Senate can and should support.

The skies over Idaho's capitol city, Boise, are smoke-filled this afternoon, and another tiny town on the edge of Idaho's Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, Atlanta, is threatened as fire encroaches on the homes there. Firefighting resources are stretched to the limit as wildland fires are burning throughout Idaho and the West. Wildfires this year have charred some 1.46 million acres nationwide. The National Interagency Fire Center said there were 49 large fires burning in the West, with more than 350 thousand

areas of active wildfires. Let us in Congress take a stand now to help protect our forests and keep them from going up in smoke every year.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to garner their support for this much-needed, bipartisan legislation, and know that they join me in sending condolences to the families of the two young men who died fighting a fire that may very well have been preventable.

Mr. President, Idaho faces grim news this morning as the deaths of two young wildland firefighters are reported. They were killed late Tuesday afternoon while fighting the Cramer fire in the Salmon-Challis National Forest west of the town of Salmon near the confluence of the middle fork of the Salmon River and the main Salmon. These men are heroes of battle, just as the men and women fighting overseas. They fought a faceless, terrifying enemy with bravery, heroism, and selfless dedication to the families and communities of central Idaho. Their sacrifice will be remembered for years to come as their names are added to the list of those fallen in service to their country in the capacity of wildland firefighters. I pray that those who continue to fight fires in Idaho and across the West this summer remain out of harm's way as they perform their valiant and critical work to preserve homes, property, and life.

The tragedy is that two more people have died. We hope it is not followed by more as we enter another fire season. The truth is that our forests are overgrown, dead and dying, and this kind of tragedy was inevitable. Legislation that I supported in the past would have made a difference. Had it been enacted last year or the year before, these senseless deaths could very well have been avoided. Idaho's wildfire season is just getting into its full swing, and we are asking our wildland firefighters in Idaho and throughout the rest of the Nation to do a dangerous job. We in Congress owe it to them and to the family members of those who didn't make it to provide them with the tools necessary to get the job done as safely and quickly as possible. These deaths are a tragic reminder of the sacrifices and risks wildland firefighters make to ensure the safety of our communities. Congress must act to reduce this threat to our communities and improve the safety of our firefighters. Today, Senator Lincoln and I are introducing bipartisan legislation to address the forest health crisis facing our nation.

As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, Senator Lincoln and I have learned of the similarities between the problems facing

the ecosystems of eastern and western forests. We know that when Congress acts to address the health of forests in the West--forests that have been devastated by fires that garner national attention--we must also reduce the risks to our forests across the country. The threat is not just to our property and lives, but clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat. We must take a comprehensive approach to protecting our resources, and Senator Lincoln and I attempt to do that in this bill.

The America's Healthy Forests Restoration and Research Act builds on the bipartisan legislation that passed the House of Representatives and is now under consideration in the Senate.

Like the House proposal, our bill addresses the ``analysis paralysis'' that prevents us from taking actions to protect our lands. For lands that are at risk of catastrophic fire or that have been severely damaged by insect or disease infestations or the aftermath of severe weather events, such as windthrow or ice storms, the bill creates an expedited process to allow for treatment. For these specific projects on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands--with the exception of lands that are wilderness areas or Wilderness Study Areas--the bill provides for time limits on appeals, reforms the appeals process, and provides guidance to the courts.

The per-acre costs of fuel reduction projects is higher and the amount of time to consider a project is longer with each alternative the agencies are required to consider. Each of these alternatives requires a complete and thorough environmental analysis. By selecting projects through the collaborative process and requiring an in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts of the specific project, we can ensure that the impacts of the project are addressed, without the analysis paralysis caused by the examination of additional alternatives--especially when projects are most often appealed based on failure to complete adequate analysis on alternatives rather than the substance of the project.

The time for action is now, we should not let fuels reduction projects be delayed or lose their effectiveness through frivolous appeals. By requiring the Forest Service to develop a new process that allows for public collaboration, by requiring substantive comments to the project, and by requiring participation in the process before allowing litigation, the bill ensures that public comment is meaningful and constructive. No longer will these important projects be stopped simply by 33 cents on a postcard.

Our bill also requires that the courts balance the long term effects with the short term effects of a project. This balance of harm should be common sense, but that has not been the case. The courts are reminded they should balance the impact of inaction in their decision making.

This streamlining of the appeals and judicial review process will counter the growing use of appeals and litigation as delaying and frustrating techniques rather than the constructive recourse they were intended for. Cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and ensuring for robust public participation--as outlined in the widely-supported Western Governors Association's collaborative strategy--is a win-win for our forests and our communities. In addition, by streamlining the process, we get more money on the ground and in action to protect our forests. Appeals, litigation, and extensive analysis of unneeded alternatives mean less money for projects. Some estimate that only sixty percent of funds allocated for fuels reduction actually makes it to the ground. Streamlining the process should result in significantly more resources to address forest health.

I have long been an advocate of better utilization of biomass and small diameter materials. This bill addresses the need for more research and more markets. Our bi-partisan bill provides grants to those who would use biomass for fuel or other beneficial purposes. Instead of leaving fuels in our forests to burn or tossing them in landfills, we can reduce the risks to our environment and create an incentive to use what has traditionally not been cost effective to use. Unlike the house bill, we expand eligible uses beyond just useful fuels. In Idaho, we have companies that can use this material for environmental restoration. We need to do more to create incentives to use this material.

To that end, our bill also includes expanded research into utilization and harvesting of small diameter materials. Light on the land techniques that find more and better uses of biomass and small diameter materials can revitalize our rural communities. Research into the costs and obstacles to using these materials will go a long way toward expanded markets and rural development. The bill also provides direction for technology transfer to get this information from the universities and scientists to the communities and small businesses in rural parts of America.

Our bipartisan bill makes research a central tenet. From research into biomass, forests conditions, upland hardwoods, the measure brings a new focus to forest threats. Our legislation expands the research to allow for landscape level research on forest-damaging agents. Fire, insects and disease, and weather events pose a significant threat to our forest ecosystems. The bill provides for cooperation with colleges and universities in applied research to combat these threats.

The bill also focuses research on preserving upland hardwoods. Not enough is known about preserving and restoring the upland hardwood forests of the South. The creation of an upland hardwood forest research center will go a long way toward finding ways to better protect, rehabilitate, restore, and utilize these important resources.

The proposal includes a watershed program that will help foresters enhance water quality in our forests. As many know, our forests serve as critical watersheds that provide drinking water to our communities. This bill provides for grants to allow for technical assistance, education, and financial assistance to enhance our efforts to ensure clean waters for our communities and wildlife.

A program to maintain forested habitat for threatened and endangered species is also an important part of this legislation. By providing for short and long-term restoration agreements the program offers incentives to maintain and utilize efforts that protect species and prevent others from being listed.

The legislation provides assistance to address the problem of nonnative invasive plants, trees, shrubs, and vines. Across the country, the expansion of nonnative invasive plants has changed ecosystems making them more susceptible to threats that could result in catastrophic fires. Our proposal provides assistance to landowners in addressing these invasives.

Finally, the bill declares that the enhanced community fire protection program is an important program in reducing risks to communities. This program, which we enacted as part of the 2002 Farm Bill, provides assistance to communities in reducing fire threats. Providing funding for this program, coupled with the savings from streamlining the process, will provide for meaningful progress in reducing the wildfire threat.

I agree with Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, who says we need to move the focus from what we take to what we leave. As he has identified, too many are looking at this as a zero-sum game. They seek someone to blame for forest health problems or argue that logging is inherently bad. We need to get beyond that fallacious argument and realize that what is important is restoring a healthy ecosystem: an ecosystem that allows for a natural fire regime to exist without threatening our communities and lives.

I hope my colleagues will join me moving beyond the narrow focus that currently passes for forest policy, this zero-sum game, and look at the needs of our forest ecosystems. This bill is a bipartisan effort that enhances the House-passed legislation. It sets a mark that the majority of the Senate can and should support.

The skies over Idaho's capitol city, Boise, are smoke-filled this afternoon, and another tiny town on the edge of Idaho's Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, Atlanta, is threatened as fire encroaches on the homes there. Firefighting resources are stretched to the limit as wildland fires are burning throughout Idaho and the West. Wildfires this year have charred some 1.46 million acres nationwide. The National Interagency Fire Center said there were 49 large fires burning in the West, with more than 350 thousand

areas of active wildfires. Let us in Congress take a stand now to help protect our forests and keep them from going up in smoke every year.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to garner their support for this much-needed, bipartisan legislation, and know that they join me in sending condolences to the families of the two young men who died fighting a fire that may very well have been preventable.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Arthur Brown, who has been a long-time resident of Idaho and a great contributor to our State and its economy.

Art Brown came to Idaho from South Africa 36 years ago to begin a new career in the mountains of Idaho's Silver Valley. Art, his wife Tiia, and their children began a journey that would support not only them but a company and our community.

As an engineer down in the mines, Art pursued the American Dream. After years of hard work and commitment, he rose to become the chairman and chief executive officer of Hecla Mining Company, which was the top performer on the New York Stock Exchange in 1979 and again in 2002.

Throughout his journey, Art never lost sight of his family and community. He served his local community as the mayor of Pinehurst. He led youth golf and ski programs. Art even gained a reputation as a head cheerleader of sorts, running the sidelines at his daughter's basketball games. Most notable is the culture of community service he fostered at Hecla, first by his example and then by encouragement to his employees to do the same thing. Giving back to the community became a way of life for a Hecla employee under Art's direction.

Hecla Mining has been a part of the fabric of Idaho for over 112 years. And so have people like Art Brown, who contribute to their community, their State, and so much more. This year Art will be retiring from his service at the helm of Hecla. However, he will not be retiring away from Idaho. True to form, Art will remain rooted in his community and family of Idaho.

I am proud of Art Brown, for the example he has set for business in the State of Idaho, for his contributions to his community, and for his family who has supported him in his endeavors over the years. On behalf of myself and so many others in the great State of Idaho, I wish him the best in his future endeavors and thank him for his service to Idaho.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my good friend, Louis Carney and his wife LuJuanna. Just last week, the Carneys, who live near my family's home in Idaho Falls, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. I am honored to know them and pleased that I was asked to join the celebration.

I can think of no better way to commemorate their 50 years together than to mention that they are the proud parents of eight children, six who are still with us--Don, Nancy, Bob, Terry, Kevin, and Kenneth; and two who have rejoined their Heavenly Father--Laurie Ann and Jean Marie; the even prouder grandparents of fifteen; and the great grandparents of one. It speaks very highly of their commitment to each other and their family that so many of their family members were on hand to mark the occasion. Louis has been a very good friend to me over the years, and I appreciate his wisdom and guidance on many matters. He has been a strong supporter of the Boy Scouts of America program, and I share his enthusiasm for this program which can be so important in helping young men to learn new skills and achieve goals.

Louis and LuJuanna have been important members of our community. They are always available for those who are in need. They radiate happiness and contentment, and can be counted on by not only their friends, but so many others. I am proud to mark their anniversary, and even more pleased to call them friends.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Hugh Brady of Boise Idaho who will be inducted into the Idaho High School Activities Hall of Fame on August 6th, 2003. In 1954 Mr. Brady started working at Idaho Sporting Goods, and he has been dedicated to helping young people in Idaho participate in athletics ever since. Mr. Brady, who later became the owner of the sporting goods store, has sponsored Little League baseball teams, football teams, basketball teams, soccer teams, softball teams, and bowling teams. He also took the time to coach many teams over the years.

Mr. Brady has demonstrated extraordinary support for athletics and the youth of Idaho. There have been numerous instances when a student could not afford the cost of equipment to participate in a sport and Mr. Brady made sure that they got it. Mr. Brady, you make Idaho proud!

For the past 4 years, Mr. Brady has battled lung cancer. My wife, Susan, and I along with many Idahoans will keep him in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to extend a heartfelt birthday greeting to Mr. Willard Eldredge who turns 80 years old today. On July 5, his friends and family will gather in Idaho Falls to honor this great man on the occasion of his birthday. Mr. Eldredge has touched many lives over the years, and I am one of the fortunate ones to have benefited from his influence. You see, I was involved in Boy Scouts, and eventually became an Eagle Scout. Mr. Eldredge was a Scout pack leader of mine many years ago. He taught me and other young men the values, work ethic, and commitment that it took to succeed in Scouts and in life. He served as a role model for me, and taught me lessons about honor, duty, honesty, and patriotism that I have carried with me throughout my life. It is now my honor to wish my former mentor a wonderful, and very happy 80th birthday.

Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation to Sharla Moffett Beall, my Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water Subcommittee staff director, as she returns to her home State of Oregon. Sharla has been an important member of my Senate staff. Her counsel and efforts will be missed.

There is no one in the Senate more knowledgeable on Endangered Species Act issues; issues of real significance to Idaho and the Nation. She has been a tireless advocate for meaningful solutions to recover endangered and threatened salmon species in the Pacific Northwest. She has helped me to lead the fight against bad policies, such as the total maximum daily load rule proposed in 2000, and for good policies, like habitat conservation plans and streamlining of the consultation process.

When I became chairman of the subcommittee, I had little doubt about who I wanted as staff director. I first worked with Sharla when she was professional staff for the House Agriculture Committee. I knew that in Sharla, I had someone experienced, professional, effective, and with a keen legislative sense. She also shared my political philosophy and passion for fish and wildlife issues.

It has also been rewarding to see Sharla start a family during her time as staff director. In her first year on my staff, she married another Oregon native, Jim Beall; during the second year, they had her first child, Anna-Sophia; and just last year a second daughter, Alexandra-Skye, was born. They are a wonderful and loving family.

The Senate has a tough time competing with two beautiful daughters. I will miss Sharla and her family. I wish them all the best, but I know this is not farewell. She will continue to be a valued friend and advisor.

Mr. President, I rise to address the Feinstein amendment dealing with derivatives. I think it is a very bad idea. It is one we debated last year and one which is dangerous to our economy.

In order to understand, we have to go back 2 years. Several years ago, Congress wanted to know exactly how our country should approach the regulation of derivatives. As a result of that, and after a few years of study and debate in which a precise time was put together to evaluate the issue, that team came back with recommendations. Those recommendations were enacted by Congress in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This landmark legislation provided certainty with respect to the legal enforceability and regulatory status of swaps and other off-exchange derivatives--what we call over-the-counter derivatives--under the Commodity Exchange Act. The Feinstein amendment would undermine that certainty for OTC derivatives and would impose a new persuasive and unnecessary regulatory regime with respect to OTC derivatives based on energy or on other nonfinancial, nonagricultural commodities.

This act gets complicated, but these commodities are called ``exempt commodities.'' The term is a little bit confusing because it creates the impression sometimes that these commodities are not regulated at all. They are covered fully by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and by the Commodity Exchange Act. The point is that they are not regulated in the same way that other securities are regulated.

OTC derivatives, including those based on energy, are critical risk management tools. Congress, key financial regulators and others recognize that OTC derivatives are critical tools that are used by businesses, government, and others to manage the financial, commodity, credit and other risks inherent in their core economic activities with a degree of efficiency that would not otherwise be possible.

It is important to state at the outset as we are discussing this issue that we are not talking about transactions that many people think of in securities where they think about investing in a stock in the stock market, a stock that may be regulated under our securities regulations system. These are not transactions that are engaged in by unsophisticated buyers or sellers. These are very sophisticated transactions. Those engaging in these transactions are sophisticated buyers and sellers. They are not the kinds of transactions most people think of when they think of investing in the stock market.

OTC derivatives based on energy products are an especially important tool, allowing market participants to manage risk. In fact, last year when we had Alan Greenspan testify at the Banking Committee, I asked him directly about whether he believed the management of derivatives, the regulation of derivatives, was being properly handled today and whether there was any aspect of our approach to regulating derivatives that led to the Enron

debacle or any of the other problems California faced.

At that time, the answer I got from Mr. Greenspan was that he was not aware of any evidence that indicated the problems we faced in the Enron circumstance were as a result of our regulatory regime for derivatives, and also that it was his opinion the use of derivatives was a very important tool to help to allocate risk in our economy in such a manner that it helped us stabilize and strengthen our economy.

In fact, he even went so far as to say he believed that one reason our economy had not dipped further as we faced a lot of the economic trials and tribulations we have faced in the last couple of years was because of our ability to utilize derivatives and to share and allocate risk in these complicated transactions.

Today, for example, airlines use over-the-counter derivatives to manage their risks with respect to the price and availability of jet fuel. Energy-intensive companies such as aluminum producers use OTC derivatives to hedge their risks of change in the cost of electricity, and energy producers likewise use OTC derivatives to minimize the effects of price volatility.

Again, I reiterate the point that these are complicated, sophisticated transactions being engaged in by very sophisticated participants in the market.

A Wall Street Journal article dated March 10, 2003, entitled ``U.S. Airlines Show Disparity in Hedging for Jet-Fuel Costs,'' illustrated the impacts of using derivatives to hedge in the U.S. airline industry. The article noted that jet fuel, now more than twice as expensive; as a year ago, is emerging as a major factor in survival and bankruptcy for airlines, as several carriers, including some of the weakest, find themselves with few protective price hedges in place.

In other words, these airlines did not effectively utilize the hedging tool, and now they are facing a doubling in the cost of their fuel prices against which they could have hedged. They could have spread that risk if they had used these hedging tools.

Congress should avoid actions that unnecessarily deter the use or increase the cost of these risk management tools.

Key financial regulators also oppose legislation such as this amendment. As I indicated earlier, Alan Greenspan indicated his opposition to increasing or changing the regulatory regime with regard to transactions in OTC derivatives. We are expecting anytime today to get a brandnew response from all of our financial regulators. But last year when this same debate was held, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, collectively known as the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, opposed the earlier versions of the amendment we debated.

In a September 18, 2002, letter to Senators Crapo and Miller, these regulators highlighted the benefits of OTC derivative noting that ``the OTC derivatives markets in question have been a major contributor to our economy's ability to respond to the stresses and challenges of the last two years.'' The President's working group also observed ``while the derivatives markets may seem far removed from the interests and concerns of consumers, the efficiency gains that these markets have fostered are enormously important to the consumers and to our economy.'' They urged Congress to protect these markets' contributions to the economy and to be aware of the potential unintended consequences of legislative proposals to expand regulation of the OTC derivatives markets, and changing the President's working group proposals which we enacted into law in 2000.

Federal Reserved Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee in March of last year that there was:

a significant downside if we regulate [OTC derivatives

based on energy] where we do not have to . . . because if we

step in as government regulators, we will remove a

considerable amount if the caution that is necessary to allow

these markets to evolve. [W]hile it may appear sensible to go

in and regulate, all of our experience is that there is a

significant downside when you do not allow counterparty

surveillance to function in an appropriate manner.

The CFTC does not need new authority to address acts of manipulation that appear to have occurred in California.

One of the arguments we often hear in favor of jumping in and increasing the regulatory scheme with regard to derivatives is that Enron destroyed the energy markets in California and if we had had a tough regulatory regime, that wouldn't have happened.

The CFTC's recent enforcement action against Enron demonstrates that it has adequate tools under the CFMA to address situations such as those, which arose in California. The following enforcement actions have been brought forth by the CFTC this year: No. 1, CFTC charges Enron with price manipulation, operating an illegal, undesignated futures exchange and offering illegal lumber futures contracts through its internet trading platform; No. 2, energy trading company agrees to pay the CFTC $20 million to settle charges of attempted manipulation and false reporting; and No. 3, former natural gas trader charged criminally under the Commodity Exchange Act with intentionally reporting false natural gas price and volume information to energy reporting firms in an attempt to affect prices of natural gas contracts.

The point here is, there is law in place prohibiting the kinds of things that happened in the Enron situation, and those laws are being enforced with criminal penalties being imposed. The fact they are already regulated is apparent. The fact that the acts that occurred in California are the subject of intense regulatory review and criminal enforcement conduct shows we do have regulatory protections in place. The fact there are bad actors who violate the law does not always mean we should necessarily increase the regulatory burdens we face in this country, that our economy deals with in this country.

The CFTC's Division of Enforcement continues to work closely with other Federal law enforcement officers across the country on investigations of possible round-trip trading, false reporting, and fraud and manipulation by energy companies, their affiliates, their employees, or their agents. Again, the point is, there is no evidence that any aspect or lack of aspect in our regulatory regime for the regulation of derivatives had anything to do with the actions of Enron and the occurrences in California that caused such a difficult problem in their energy economy.

There is no evidence that enactment of the CFMA, for example--the 2000 reforms, the modernization of our regulatory system--contributed to the collapse of Enron. Enron's collapse was caused by a failure of corporate governance and controls which, when it became public, led others to refuse to do business with them. As in the case of California, neither the CFTC nor any other key financial regulators has suggested more restrictive regulation of derivatives or derivatives dealers would have prevented the fall of Enron or is needed to prevent future similar events in the future.

The Feinstein amendment would cause more problems than it would cure. This amendment, among other items, would create jurisdictional confusion between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It would impose problematic capital requirements to facilities trading in the OTC energy derivatives markets. It would require futures-like reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

It would create both legal and regulatory uncertainty for brokered trading in OTC energy derivatives, as well as OTC derivatives based on other nonfinancial, nonagricultural commodities. It would subject to new regulation a broad range of market participants that have not traditionally been subject to the more intensive CFTC regulation. It would allow the CFTC to regulate any exempt commodity transaction and presumably any market participant that engages in such a transaction in a dealer market. Again, I repeat, these are sophisticated transactions between sophisticated actors in these markets. This proposal would create the very sort of uncertainty that Congress and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have worked for more than a decade to avoid.

This amendment, in my opinion, is a solution in search of a problem. Since the collapse of Enron and the actions of some market participants to improperly exploit the weaknesses in the California energy price deregulation scheme, remedial actions have occurred on all fronts. The CFTC, the FERC, and others have initiated civil and criminal actions. The Financial Accounting Standards Board has aggressively pursued necessary changes in accounting rules, and private-sector groups have developed and implemented ``best practices'' rules and improved the techniques of managing credit and other risks in the OTC energy derivatives transactions.

The lessons of Enron and of California have been learned. The misdeeds and regulatory violations involving Enron and California have challenged regulators under the existing regulatory structure. Law enforcement agencies and private litigants are dealing with it under the existing regulatory structure. The energy markets are beginning to rebound, and they are becoming less volatile, notwithstanding the current uncertain economy. As a result and because of all this, the Feinstein amendment is little more than a solution in search of a problem, but for reasons I have already mentioned, it is a solution that is dangerous and unnecessary and will put more rigidity into our economy at a time when we need the flexibility and the resilience that will make our economy more dynamic in these difficult times.

Mr. President, there are a lot of other aspects of this debate we need to review before we vote on this amendment. I am hopeful by the end of the day we are going to be in a position where we can, as a Senate, deal with this amendment, as we dealt with it last year, by rejecting it and telling our energy derivatives markets, and all of our OTC derivatives markets, that the current modernized regulatory structure we put into place in 2000, as we follow the President's working group recommendations as to how to deal with these issues, will be maintained and will not be changed, and they can continue to utilize these important financial tools to keep our economy strong and dynamic.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Thank you, Madam President. I will be very brief.

I want to reiterate, once again, we are not here dealing with a question of whether those who did try to and succeeded in manipulating markets should be held accountable for that. We are talking about what is the correct way to regulate the derivatives market in our country.

I would like to read into the Record, once again, a portion of a letter which we have just received signed by the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, John W. Snow; Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; William H. Donaldson, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and James E. Newsome, Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. They write:

Dear Senators Crapo and Miller:

Thank you for your letter of June 10, 2003, requesting the

views of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets

on proposed Senate Amendment # 876 to S. 14, the pending

energy bill. As this amendment is similar to a proposed

amendment on which you sought the views of the PWG last year,

we reassert the positions expressed in the PWG's response

dated September 18, 2002, a copy of which is enclosed. The

proposed amendment could have significant unintended

consequences for an extremely important risk management

market--serving businesses, financial institutions, and

investors throughout the U.S. economy. For that reason, we

believe that adoption of this amendment is ill-advised.

And this next paragraph responds directly to the allegations that there is some manipulation in the market and there is a loophole there. They go on to say:

We would also point out that, since we wrote that letter

last year, various federal agencies have initiated actions

against wrongdoing in energy markets.

I do not have time to go through the list of wrongdoing they have initiated action against, but they conclude in their letter:

These initial actions alone make clear that wrongdoers in

the energy markets are fully subject to the existing

enforcement authority of federal regulators.

This amendment will not be helpful to our economy. It will take away one of the needed elements of our economy that gives it the dynamic nature that it has, to be able to resist some of the difficult burdens that the economy has faced in the last several years.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I just referred to dated June 11, 2003, and an additional letter dated September 18, 2002, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I encourage my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to those members of the Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Countless women and men have answered the call of our country to preserve and protect our freedom against those individuals and regimes that would seek to compromise or destroy our way of life. Reservists have left civilian lives behind, parting with wives, husbands, parents, children, and friends in order to fulfill their commitment to our country's defense. Active Duty military members have gone from merely conducting exercises mimicking war, to leaving their homes and families to engage in the real thing, on foreign soil, thousands of emotional and physical miles from familiarity and comfort. These brave soldiers, airman, marines, and sailors do their jobs in a place where injury and death lie in wait at every turn. The next rise in the gritty, windblown landscape may hide 160 pounds of profound desperation peering from behind the barrel of a gun. The building around the corner needing to be secured might be rigged with enough explosives to make a small child's father or mother nothing but a memory. floating just beneath the roiling surface of the water, there might be a mine, with deadly patience waiting for the next ship to pass overhead so that it can accomplish its gruesome mission. These are some of the hazards our military members face in their jobs. Frankly, it makes our job in these marble halls seem significantly less perilous.

I speak today to recognize in particular those faithful men and women from my State--Idaho. We have had approximately 450 reservists and active-duty members called to serve in the war. That may not seem like a large number compared to those from some other States, but proportionately it represents a significant percentage of Idahoans. We also have countless other soldiers who have family and friends who call Idaho home. This number does not include the over 160 who were activated to fill positions vacated at installations here by deployed personnel. We also have Idahoans continuing to serve in Operation Enduring Freedom, and in the fight against terrorism. I have spoken before of MAJ Gregory Stone and CPL Richard P. Carl, both soldiers from Idaho who lost their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I now ask for a moment of silent prayer and reflection from my fellow Senators as we consider what their dying, as well as over 150 other men and women who have met the same fate in this conflict, has accomplished for our personal freedom.

Thankfully, many of those who were called to military service from Idaho have just recently returned safely home. Yet their experiences overseas will remain with them for the rest of their lives.

Some may remember lines of tanks rolling ominously forward under a dusty sky, marred by waves of heat emanating from the desert floor. That memory may be infused with the pungent odor of layers of sweat and grime under desert camies, mingled with the acrid odor of burning gasoline and oil. Others may remember pulling the trigger on their weapon and seeing death for the first time in their young life. They may remember being close enough to smell it and feel it, or feel as if their own was but a whisper away. Still more may remember the sight of crowds, pushing against one another, some greeting the American soldiers with cheers of gratitude, some screaming epithets, some shamelessly begging for food and water to feed themselves or their starving families, and others simply greeting this modern army in grim, expressionless silence brought on by years of brutal repression and loss. The smell of desperate, poverty-stricken humanity, and the sounds of raw emotion cascading forth in an uninhibited tidal wave after a lifetime of unchecked tyranny, may remain forever embedded in the memories of many of those soldiers. Finally, and very tragically, some will never forget a life that slipped away while they clutched a friend's bleeding body to their chest in shared agony.

I give account of these images to remind us of the grim reality of war, and the tremendous sacrifice that these noble women and men have made so that we can continue to live in glorious freedom. We tend to take for granted, at times, the price that is paid for this amazing gift. The cost comes not only in the loss of life, but the loss of innocence. The cost is borne by family members as well, and by those, whom never having set foot outside this country, bear the scars of a father, mother, husband, wife, son or daughter forever gone from this life.

This body voted to support a decision to send these men and women into harm's way. Lest the proud soldiers from Idaho, and their persevering families, think that I came to that decision lightly, I stand now before you and recognize their tremendous bravery in the

face of danger, their courage in the face of death, and their unequivocal commitment to preserving the ideals of liberty and democracy. I want to convey no doubt that their decision to become a member of the most well-trained, professional military in the world places them in my highest esteem. With gravity and sincerity, I thank them and I honor them. They have given me, my wife, and most importantly, my children, and yours as well, the priceless gift of freedom.