Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Senate to join me in honoring the retirement of Col. Edwin D. Strickfaden, director of the Idaho State Police. Colonel Strickfaden retired on December 31, 2002, after faithfully serving the citizens of Idaho for 35 years. I join with many Idahoans in recognizing Colonel Strickfaden's career as a sterling example of dedication to public safety and service to others.

Enormous is the debt owed by us to the men and women who work in law enforcement, who, every day put their lives on the line to defend the rights and liberties we enjoy. Colonel Strickfaden exemplifies the sacrifices made by these exceptional people. He is deserving of our respect and honor as he concludes his distinguished career.

Edwin D. Strickfaden's career with the Idaho State Police began in 1967 at the conclusion of 4 years of service to his country in the U.S. Air Force. He started with the Idaho State Police serving at the King Hill Port-of-Entry facility in King Hill, ID. He was made officer-in- charge of the facility in 1969. A year later, he was again promoted and assigned to the District Two office in Lewiston. In all, Colonel Strickfaden served in six offices of the Idaho State Police throughout Idaho, in three of them as commander. The year's many changes and transfers afforded him vast experience in all aspects of Idaho law enforcement and many opportunities to serve the people of Idaho.

One of many salient moments that defined Mr. Strickfaden's distinguished career is a time when he dove into the icy December waters of the Clearwater River to rescue a woman from a submerged vehicle, an action given special recognition by then-Governor Cecil Andrus. This action typified the courage and dedication he was known for throughout his 35-year career.

The invaluable knowledge and experience that Colonel Strickfaden gained through many years of service became critical in 1998 when he was asked to serve as director of the Department of Law Enforcement. Under Colonel Strickfaden's leadership, the former Department of Law Enforcement and State Police were combined into a single agency. The new Idaho State Police has become an effective organization with numerous successes in the war on drugs and other enforcement issues in Idaho. True to this mission, Idaho has experienced a decline in illegal drug use since Colonel Strickfaden served as director of the Idaho State Police. Without the effective work of the Idaho State Police, our ability to live in a safe and secure environment would be compromised. Colonel Strickfaden's tireless efforts have helped reach the goal of making Idaho a safe and secure environment for all of its residents.

As he enters a new phase of his life, I know my Senate colleagues will join me in thanking Colonel Strickfaden on his distinguished career as an Idaho State Police Officer and wish him every success in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to join with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, and with the other Senators he has listed who are cosponsoring this critical legislation.

Senator Craig has already laid out this circumstance. Some time ago, when we could not reach an agreement with Canada on this critical issue through trade negotiations, WTO and other trade sanctions were sought by American companies seeking to correct the problem that has been faced by subsidized timber flooding into the United States from Canada. As a result of that effort, the U.S. Department of Commerce found the Canadian provinces subsidize their industry by providing lumber mills timber at prices that are 33 to 50 percent below market value.

As Senator Craig has indicated, as a result of that, a countervailing duty was applied and the Canadian timber producers, who are trying to bring their timber into the United States, are now required to pay this countervailing duty as a cost for their subsidized timber.

The response of the Canadian Government to that has not been simply to comply and try to negotiate a new, workable softwood lumber agreement. Instead, the Canadian Government has continued to increase the available subsidies and to try to flood the United States markets with this timber. The outcome has been that from August 2000 to March 2001, the United States lumber manufacturers closed 27 mills permanently while only two Canadian mills were closed during that time. The reason, of course, was this continued support provided from the Canadian Government.

How was it provided? As has already been indicated, allegedly bug kill timber. But timber wood that has not faced the impact yet was provided for prices which were as low as $1 per 1,000 board feet when the market price for that timber would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 per 1,000 board feet. This significantly subsidized timber has been brought into the United States, exacerbating the problem.

Second, as Senator Craig already indicated, the British Columbian government has already revised their forest practice code to reduce the cost of lumber manufacturers under their code, saving them millions of dollars annually. What we see is, in response to this anticompetitive situation of unfair trade practices that have been identified and which are now being dealt with in litigation, the Canadians have increased their subsidies and are continuing to flood timber into the United States markets.

A number of changes need to occur. But one of them needs to occur in U.S. law because as a part of the entire process, it is important to determine the amount of subsidy. The subsidy is determined by evaluating whether the price that is being charged to the Canadian producers is above or below their cost of production. One of the critical elements is determining that value.

Currently, we have found Canadian companies are selling their lumber into the United States at below their subsidized cost of production, requiring antidumping duty of 8.79 percent. The point I make is that their current subsidies are even below and make it so that they are able to provide their timber to U.S. markets below subsidized cost of production.

The legislation we are introducing today will require them to include the countervailing duty which they pay as a part of their cost of production in determining what their true subsidy is. As long as the United States does not require the Canadians to include their countervailing duties as a cost of their production, then the amount of the subsidy which we determine will be even less than it truly is. It will not be accurately reflected.

This is a simple change to clarify what is already on the books in the United States. This practice is pursued in Europe and in Canada already under their approach to these issues. It is only proper that the U.S. Government stand firmly behind this principle. Again, the principle is, when a nation is subsidizing its products and shipping them into U.S. markets to the detriment of our producers, that subsidy must be included as a cost of doing business when we calculate in our litigation with them the amount of subsidy and the resultant countervailing duties we can apply.

I don't believe there is a legitimate argument against this legislation. I realize nations across the world are trying to figure out how to continue to do the best they can for their producers to help them get their products into our markets. However, we have now very aggressive negotiations underway in bilateral trade arrangements as well as in multilateral trade arrangements such as the world trade negotiations seeking to bring down the level of subsidies across the world to a level of zero. That is our objective in our international trade negotiations. We cannot tolerate the continued defiance of these types of laws in our negotiations. That is the simple purpose behind this legislation.

The United States and the Department of Commerce and our United States trade negotiators in particular have been doing a tremendous job in helping deal with a very difficult situation resulting from the Canadian unfair trade practices in softwood lumber. They are to be commended for this. One of the things we need to provide to them as a tool in this ongoing process is a congressional and, indeed, American statutory declaration that countervailing duties must be included in the cost of production as we negotiate on these critical issues with our neighbors to the north.

I thank the Senate for this time. I thank my colleague Senator Craig for his leadership on this issue and the other Senators supporting this effort.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to join with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, and with the other Senators he has listed who are cosponsoring this critical legislation.

Senator Craig has already laid out this circumstance. Some time ago, when we could not reach an agreement with Canada on this critical issue through trade negotiations, WTO and other trade sanctions were sought by American companies seeking to correct the problem that has been faced by subsidized timber flooding into the United States from Canada. As a result of that effort, the U.S. Department of Commerce found the Canadian provinces subsidize their industry by providing lumber mills timber at prices that are 33 to 50 percent below market value.

As Senator Craig has indicated, as a result of that, a countervailing duty was applied and the Canadian timber producers, who are trying to bring their timber into the United States, are now required to pay this countervailing duty as a cost for their subsidized timber.

The response of the Canadian Government to that has not been simply to comply and try to negotiate a new, workable softwood lumber agreement. Instead, the Canadian Government has continued to increase the available subsidies and to try to flood the United States markets with this timber. The outcome has been that from August 2000 to March 2001, the United States lumber manufacturers closed 27 mills permanently while only two Canadian mills were closed during that time. The reason, of course, was this continued support provided from the Canadian Government.

How was it provided? As has already been indicated, allegedly bug kill timber. But timber wood that has not faced the impact yet was provided for prices which were as low as $1 per 1,000 board feet when the market price for that timber would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 per 1,000 board feet. This significantly subsidized timber has been brought into the United States, exacerbating the problem.

Second, as Senator Craig already indicated, the British Columbian government has already revised their forest practice code to reduce the cost of lumber manufacturers under their code, saving them millions of dollars annually. What we see is, in response to this anticompetitive situation of unfair trade practices that have been identified and which are now being dealt with in litigation, the Canadians have increased their subsidies and are continuing to flood timber into the United States markets.

A number of changes need to occur. But one of them needs to occur in U.S. law because as a part of the entire process, it is important to determine the amount of subsidy. The subsidy is determined by evaluating whether the price that is being charged to the Canadian producers is above or below their cost of production. One of the critical elements is determining that value.

Currently, we have found Canadian companies are selling their lumber into the United States at below their subsidized cost of production, requiring antidumping duty of 8.79 percent. The point I make is that their current subsidies are even below and make it so that they are able to provide their timber to U.S. markets below subsidized cost of production.

The legislation we are introducing today will require them to include the countervailing duty which they pay as a part of their cost of production in determining what their true subsidy is. As long as the United States does not require the Canadians to include their countervailing duties as a cost of their production, then the amount of the subsidy which we determine will be even less than it truly is. It will not be accurately reflected.

This is a simple change to clarify what is already on the books in the United States. This practice is pursued in Europe and in Canada already under their approach to these issues. It is only proper that the U.S. Government stand firmly behind this principle. Again, the principle is, when a nation is subsidizing its products and shipping them into U.S. markets to the detriment of our producers, that subsidy must be included as a cost of doing business when we calculate in our litigation with them the amount of subsidy and the resultant countervailing duties we can apply.

I don't believe there is a legitimate argument against this legislation. I realize nations across the world are trying to figure out how to continue to do the best they can for their producers to help them get their products into our markets. However, we have now very aggressive negotiations underway in bilateral trade arrangements as well as in multilateral trade arrangements such as the world trade negotiations seeking to bring down the level of subsidies across the world to a level of zero. That is our objective in our international trade negotiations. We cannot tolerate the continued defiance of these types of laws in our negotiations. That is the simple purpose behind this legislation.

The United States and the Department of Commerce and our United States trade negotiators in particular have been doing a tremendous job in helping deal with a very difficult situation resulting from the Canadian unfair trade practices in softwood lumber. They are to be commended for this. One of the things we need to provide to them as a tool in this ongoing process is a congressional and, indeed, American statutory declaration that countervailing duties must be included in the cost of production as we negotiate on these critical issues with our neighbors to the north.

I thank the Senate for this time. I thank my colleague Senator Craig for his leadership on this issue and the other Senators supporting this effort.

Mr. President, would the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee yield for a colloquy regarding Land and Water Conservation Funds for Idaho?

First allow me to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for their leadership and hard work on this bill. The Committee has had to make difficult decisions with scarce resources and have worked hard to do so in a fair manner. I appreciate Chairman Burns and Ranking Member Byrd's effort and diligence.

Idaho is a state of spectacular natural beauty and wildlife habitat. One jewel within the Gem State is the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, SNRA. The SNRA is a national treasure enjoyed by locals and visitors to Idaho alike. The opportunity to preserve important parts of its pristine beauty is available through the purchase of scenic easements. Further, when the SNRA was established nearly thirty years ago, a commitment was made to private property owners to secure easements.

In the past, funding has been inadequate to complete the easement purchases. However, in recent years, with the support of the Chairman and Ranking Member, we have been a renewed interest in completing the purchase of relevant easements within the SNRA. Idaho is grateful for the committee's support in obtaining these easements.

It is expected that $3 million in Fiscal Year 2003 will fulfill the easement needs in the SNRA. Unfortunately, funding for easements in the SNRA was not included in the committee-passed bill. I recognize the subcommittee is operating under significant financial restraints and not all worthy projects can be funded. Yet, it is my hope the Chairman and ranking member can revisit their important project in the conference.

Again, I am grateful the committee has previously responded to the opportunities to use land and water conservation funds to acquire easements in the SNRA to protect the valuable habitats and scenic values. Support for easements in the SNRA are locally-driven, with wide-spread support and anxious willing-sellers. Completion of this project will address the concerns of private property owners and protect this wonderful resource for all Americans to enjoy.

I would ask the Chairman and ranking member if they would work with me in conference to evaluate this request, with an eye toward inclusion in the conference report.

I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

The Senate is in morning business for another 23\1/2\ minutes.