Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask consent that when the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, the Senate begin consideration of Calendar No. 89, S. 557, a bill to provide guidance for the designation of emergencies as a part of the budget process.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar: No. 21. I ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nomination appear at this point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 27, S. 249.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments, if applicable, be agreed to, the bills be considered read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to any of these bills be printed at the appropriate place in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that we will receive testimony on one additional bill, S. 416 a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the city of Sisters, Oregon, a certain parcel of land for use in connection with a sewage treatment facility, before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Wednesday, April 29, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office building in Washington, D.C. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Amie Brown or Mike Menge (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the conference report on the budget resolution. I extend my sincere congratulations to the chairman of our Budget Committee for the work that he and that committee have so successfully completed in the last number of weeks. In fact, I am extremely pleased with where we are as a Senate at this moment in time. Many of our constituents around the country were frustrated as the Senate convened this year to start with an impeachment process of the President, fearing that we would be so bogged down in that that we would not get to the work of our people and get to the work of Government and to processes like the budget resolution. Quite the opposite has happened. The Senate responded in a timely and constitutionally proper manner to the impeachment issue and then moved rapidly into its work. As a result, we are here today voting on a budget resolution which will be adopted as a conference report. It will be the second earliest date of adoption of a budget resolution in the 23 years of the Budget Act. That is why I think the chairman of our Budget Committee deserves the congratulations of the Senate and why the American people ought to at least be assured that we are here and at work and doing what we should be doing in behalf of them to make sure their Government responds appropriately to the needs of all of our taxpayers. This budget demonstrates that we can and should have a balanced fiscal program that addresses our Nation's major priorities. If we and future Congresses and the President follow the plan that is now laid before us in this budget resolution, we will pay down the public debt. There will be $463 billion more in debt reduction than the President's budget offered us over the next 10 years. I have had the privilege of serving in Congress for a number of years. I tell my colleagues, I have watched the debt grow, and I voted against most of that growth. Today to be able to vote for debt reduction is a very positive move for this Congress and laying the course for future Congresses to do the same. One-half of the debt held by the public can be paid off in the next decade if we follow the general outlines of the budget that Senator Domenici has put before us. We will make sure Social Security revenues are reserved exclusively for Social Security benefits. We will safeguard the current Social Security system for today's seniors and for those who plan to retire in the near future. Mr. President, I, like you, have just returned from my State and from the Easter recess. While I was there, I held what I think is the beginning of a series of town meetings that I will hold across the State on Social Security and its need for modernization. I invited seniors in high school and senior citizens to attend, and they did in large numbers. I was extremely pleased not only by their turnout but by their willingness to listen and react and give me ideas about what they see the Social Security system being and what it ought to be. I told them that we, by our budget here and by balancing the budget and producing surpluses, are providing the country with a generational opportunity to maintain a strong Social Security system while at the same time offering a modernization package that can take young people entering the workforce and paying Social Security through a lifetime of developing an annuity program that would be much like a positive retirement program that they could take with them when they retired and would be substantially more than if they were in the current Social Security system. More importantly, it would not have to address substantial tax increases in Social Security in the outyears beyond 2034 and 2035. So for the first time since 1960, the budget will be balanced without counting Social Security surpluses. We will provide a reasonable and necessary amount for tax relief for working Americans and their families. You heard the Senator from Washington and others in just the last few hours talk about an American taxpayer that is paying his or her taxes today, being taxed at the highest level ever in the history of our country. We are turning that around. I am pleased to be able to be here on the floor today, on a day when most people are going to the post office to pay their taxes, or at least to file their tax returns, to say that we are going to change some of that. While this is a tax cut, I also agree with my colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, that we ought to be looking at tax reform in the near future that will simplify the Tax Code and make it much less intimidating than it is today to all of us; those who are relatively sophisticated and those who are less sophisticated find it all very intimidating and difficult to comply with. All tax relief will be provided out of the onbudget surplus, that is, the non-Social Security surplus. And $778 billion over 10 years sounds like a lot of tax relief, but it is a tax reduction of less than 3.5 percent. So when some of our colleagues come running to the floor wringing their hands about giving tax breaks when we ought to be spending all this money, as the President wants to do for new programs, let me say to them that we are only offering a 3.5-percent tax reduction against the highest taxes in the history of our country, and we are offering it over a 10-year period. Frankly, it is nowhere near what I hoped it would be, but it clearly moves us in the right direction. This budget continues. The American people demanded fiscal discipline and responsibility in 1994 when they changed the character and culture of the Congress and they said quit building deficits and get your fiscal house in order and control the size of Government. So we abide by the budget caps adopted in 1997 in a bipartisan balanced budget agreement. It continues the spending restraints we began in 1995, a product of that 1994 election and the 1994 Congress--the first Republican Congress in 40 years, which has helped produce the balanced budget and the projected surpluses. This budget fully funds and protects the solvency of Medicare. In that respect, it stands in clear contrast to what the President has proposed, which actually proposed to cut Medicare funding and promised only General Treasury IOUs for the future. I am amazed that that has missed the attention of the press and a lot of the American people since our President proposed it. But it really was a first-class shell game, probably one of the best I have seen produced by this administration, when they said they were doing one thing when, in fact, they were actually doing another. To hand this next generation a whole fist full of IOUs after mounting the hugest debt in the history of our country just doesn't make a lot of sense. So we are not doing that in this budget. We won't do that. It would not be fair, and most important, it would not be responsible. Of course, Medicare still needs the attention in the long term, and Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike--have stepped up and said we ought to do so. Democrat Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and Democrat Senator Breaux of Louisiana worked hard to work with us on a bipartisan, long-term Medicare plan, and it is necessary. Congress ought not to go home this year without doing it. But my guess is that we will because of the politics of it. That should not happen. The fact that a bipartisan Medicare Commission broke down because the President's appointees would not walk up to the line and do what was right--I am not sure why, but my guess is they would like to perpetrate another ``medi-scare'' as a tactic going into the next political cycle. It is pretty unconscionable that anybody would want to do that. But there is really no other explanation for why they failed to do what had to be done because those of us who face the electorate and understand the complications of Medicare stepped to that line and said reform is necessary and offered a reform package, Democrat and Republican alike. I have mentioned several of those Democrats. So that work is yet to be done. Medicare reform is yet to be dealt with, and I hope we can do it because it is necessary. This budget strengthens America's defense forces too long neglected under this administration. Yet, this is an administration that has used our defense forces more than nearly any other President in a peacetime era. It is time that we make sure that America's sons and daughters who put themselves in harm's way in the protection of our Nation have their interests served. When I speak of their interests being served, I mean making sure that we back them up with equipment and technology, compensate them adequately, and give them the dignified quality of life that anybody in that service deserves. This budget meets the challenges of the 21st century with positive initiatives in agriculture, child care, and education. What I am telling you, Mr. President, is I think this is a pretty darn good budget. It is sound and it is a conservative budget. It recognizes the value of balancing, and it recognizes the reward to the taxpayers that a balanced budget ought to offer. It is good for the economic security of the American family by recognizing that we are going to let them keep some of their hard-earned dollars instead of cycling them to Washington and try to get them back. All of the money that we spend here comes from somebody's hard work, somebody who gets up every morning bright and early and goes to work and works hard for 8, 10, 12 hours a day. They willingly pay a very large chunk of their income to Government. Now that we have balanced the budget, why should we be chasing new Government programs, or bigger Government programs, or programs that ultimately take freedom away from people and their choice? Why should we not be rewarding the taxpayer by saying that we have enough and we are going to send some of it back to you, and we are not going to take it away from you in the future, unless we come to you and ask you for it because there truly is a national need. That is the way good Government works and, very frankly, I think this is a pretty good Government budget. I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to vote with us for it, and I urge my colleagues to work with the Finance Committee and with the Senate to devise a tax package that is fair and equitable across the board, that recognizes issues such as the marriage penalty, that recognizes an issue such as small family business owners who grow too old to operate their business and want to pass it through to their children and are being denied that because the children would have to sell it to pay the taxes on it. That is a great tragedy in the American dream--how our Government ever got crosswise with the idea of a family being able to pass down through the generations a business that they have built and has grown over the years and now have to sell to pay the inheritance tax, the death tax. Now, I am not suggesting that if it doesn't move in the family and it is simply sold at the end of a generation, it ought not to receive some tax. But when we are talking small, privately held businesses, farms and ranches, Main Street small businesses that make our country work so well, and then find out that mom and dad can't hand it to a son or daughter without the Government taking nearly all of it, or the son and daughter then spending their lifetime to buy it back, frankly, that is wrong. I and others have worked a long time to reduce the death tax. We have been able to do some of that. Why don't we just eliminate it, or deal with it in a way which says that if that asset moves out to be sold in the marketplace as an asset for sale then it comes under the normal tax of the income of an individual with the proper considerations against depreciation and all of that? That would be fair. That would be just. We should deal with our countrymen in a way that says we recognize that those who work for the American dream ought to be allowed to pass that dream forward to the next generation. That is one of those kinds of tax reforms I hope we can get at this year. There are a good many others that our colleagues are working on and that will be embodied in the tax relief package that is placed in this to this budget resolution. Once again, let me praise the chairman of our Budget Committee, and that committee and the will of the Republican Congress that says that a balanced budget is something we will keep and continue to work for and that surpluses should be handed back as rewards to the American taxpayer instead of spent. That is what this budget does. I am proud to have been a part of it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, understanding the order, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the budget for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I offer this congratulatory statement to George R. Stephens, a long-time GPO liaison to the Senate Republican Policy Committee, on the eve of his retirement. George has been a part of the Policy Committee family for so long that we've practically forgotten he's on a different payroll. In fact, his tenure with the Committee long precedes my service as Committee Chairman. But, let's start at the beginning. George R. Stephens began his employment with the Government Printing Office in 1969, following in his mother's--and his grandmother's--footsteps. George's mother, Ella Stephens, joined GPO in 1950 as a ``clerk-typist.'' George's first GPO job was a Linotype operator. After a short stint in the private sector, George returned to work at GPO's headquarters for about 10 years. In January of 1981, he began his 18-year service as a GPO liaison to the U.S. Senate, assigned to the Republican Policy Committee (RPC) as a printer/proofreader. The position included aiding the RPC in publishing its Record Vote Analysis, a publication the Committee has provided continually since its inception in 1947. George has served under four Policy Committee chairmen: John Tower of Texas; Bill Armstrong of Colorado; Don Nickles; and now myself. It must have been a challenge for a nonpartisan federal employee to work in the single large committee room that houses the dedicated, outspoken, and decidedly opinionated RPC staff, engaged in near-constant discourse about how to solve the problems of the day. To his credit, George's professionalism and nonpartisanship never wavered, yet he is accepted as a full-fledged member of our Policy Committee family. I think it's fair to say he appreciates our party's dedication to keeping government in its place--that is, good government, but not Big Government. George has certainly been an energetic advocate for the good government work of his employer, Congress' printer. In a letter to the editor to Roll Call in 1995 responding to that newspaper's call for increased privatization of GPO services, George wrote, ``. . . There isn't another printing company on this earth capable of producing such large jobs so quickly and with the high standards to which Members have become accustomed. Newcomers to Washington quickly learn that GPO prints and delivers the Congressional Record and the Federal Register on a daily basis. They also learn that its ability to have printed bills and other documents available within hours of their drafting is essential to the smooth and timely operation of Senate proceedings.'' George's years of service with the GPO span an era of unprecedented growth in technology. From typewriters and hot metal typesetting, to so-called cold press, to computer desktop publishing, fiber optics, CD- Rom's and online publishing, George has witnessed truly revolutionary changes to the world of printing. However, one thing has not changed: our government's commitment to assure public access to government information. George is part of that proud tradition. While some witnesses to a revolution turn and run in fear of the unknown, George has embraced each development along the way. His eagerness to keep up with changing technology has been an asset to our Committee, but his eagerness is not limited to technology. This is a man who loves his job. With a record that likely competes with any postman, George travels 60 miles each way every day to arrive at work on time, no matter the weather or traffic conditions. His dedication is commendable. But George will not be remembered simply for his work as our Committee's GPO liaison. He's also an avid ham radio operator, and for 13 years has served as president of the Capitol Hill Amateur Radio Society. The club was formally established in 1969, and, at the urging of Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, it established a station in the Russell Senate office building. That station has been maintained on a voluntary basis, without any government funds, ever since. Over the years, the club has stood ready to provide communications in the event of a disaster, and to help connect military personnel overseas with their friends or family members. In one of its many accomplishments under George's leadership, the club in 1991 hosted a commemoration of the bicentennial of the birth of Samuel F.B. Morse, by reenacting Morse's historic 1844 message, ``What hath God wrought!'' from the Nation's Capitol to Baltimore. The telegraph instruments used for the re-enactment were loaned by the Smithsonian Institution, and because the society's members are proficient in Morse code, the re-enactment was historically accurate. Yet, things have a way of changing. Like hot metal typesetting, ham radio is truly a phenomenon of the 20th century. The advent of the computer and the Internet age have reduced ham radio's appeal. And so now, when George goes, so too goes the Capitol Hill Amateur Radio Club. On George's last day of government service, April 30, the club will disband, the equipment will be donated to a foundation, the antenna removed from the Russell roof. The callsign ``W3USS'' will remain alive but inactive. This marks the end of a remarkable era. So, let us look to the future. George and his wife Bea live in a little southern Maryland town called Avenue. His house is right on the water, but George doesn't own a boat. He says he's never had time for boating. Now, he's looking at buying a nice little 24-foot or 30-foot ``party boat'' so he can host friends in an occasional leisure-filled afternoon on the lower Potomac. Perhaps, after that little purchase, he won't miss us all quite so much! In closing, on behalf of myself, and of the current and former staff of the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, I wish to offer heartfelt thanks for George's many valuable years of service, and our hopes that he and his wife enjoy many happy and healthy years of retirement. We truly cannot give enough thanks to someone who has dedicated himself to making sure we Senators--literally--dot our `i's' and cross our `t's'.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing previously announced has been rescheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing scheduled for Wednesday, April 14, 1999, at 2 in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. has been canceled. Alternatively, the hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 28, 1999, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 415, a bill to amend the Arizona Statehood and Enabling Act in order to protect the permanent trust funds of the State of Arizona from erosion due to inflation and modify the basis on which distributions are made from the funds, and S. 607, a bill to reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Amie Brown or Mike Menge (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains?

Mr. CRAIG. Let me conclude using my 30 seconds to say that it does not impact, as the Senator has just said, current programs. We are talking new creations, new ideas, new entitlement programs--not Social Security, not Medicare, not those kinds of critical programs that this Congress and this Senate attempt to strengthen and protect. I am talking about the new ideas that come along. It doesn't limit them, either. It simply says that you have to gain the 60-vote majority here in the Senate; you have to find new revenue sources for them or pull revenue from existing mandatory areas. As the Senator from Nebraska has so clearly spoken, it brings on balance in our budget new mandatory programs with current discretionary programs. Here is the simple relationship: The red on the chart shows the progressive decline in discretionary spending since we have had pay-go enforcement there. This has been the kind of growth in mandatory when we had none of that budget authority, and, therefore, budget restriction. That is the issue of this amendment. I encourage my colleagues here in the Senate to support it.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for a waiver of the Budget Act.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire, what are the time constraints in relation to the debate on this amendment?

Mr. CRAIG. Yes, I will. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the time limitations on each amendment?

Mr. CRAIG. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. My amendment would require that new mandatory spending programs be paid for with savings in existing mandatory programs, and it would establish a 60-vote point of order. We have known--since we have had limits on discretionary programs as the chart beside me demonstrates--a progressive reduction in the overall size of the discretionary spending within our budget. My amendment does not affect any existing mandatory program. My amendment does not impact any current or future beneficiary of existing programs. What I am talking about is new mandatory, new direct spending programs, and it doesn't eliminate them, either. It simply requires that any Senator who brings that kind of program to the floor must experience the support of at least 60 of the Members of the Senate to be able to withstand this point of order. My amendment will not prevent a tax increase and its use of debt and deficit reduction. That is simply not the case. It simply puts on equal footing new spending in mandatory areas, along with current discretionary spending. My amendment institutes a milder version of the same spending restrictions that have applied to appropriated spending programs since 1990. I think it is easy to understand. Last year we received 54 votes. It is a bipartisan effort. Senator Kerrey will speak to it. Senator Robb and Senator Byrd have supported me in this effort, and have indicated their continued support in that area. It is that very effort that limits the kind of growth in our budget that we have always tried to do in creating balance. Senator Kerrey has arrived on the floor, and I yield him the remainder of our time.

Mr. CRAIG. I reserve that time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, and I have joined together in our effort to control the overall growth of government. We are asking that the Senate apply a 60-vote requirement to any new entitlement program--not new spending in existing entitlement programs, but new entitlement programs--exactly as we treat any growth in discretionary spending. It would take a 60-vote point of order for us to add new entitlement programs and spend new money. I think it is a requirement that this Senate should have. Last year, 54 Senators voted for it. It is bipartisan in its character to control the overall growth of government. We think it is appropriate that it be spent that way. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. CRAIG. I ask Senators to vote for the waiving of the budget point of order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that ensures the public will have a say in the management of our public lands. I am pleased that Senators Murkowski, Lott, Stevens, Burns, Gordon Smith, Crapo, Shelby, Hagel, and Bennett are joining me as original cosponsors. After President Clinton's proclamation of four years ago, declaring nearly two million acres of southern Utah a national monument, I introduced the Idaho Protection Act of 1999. That bill would have required that the public and the Congress be included before a national monument could be established in Idaho. When I introduced that bill, I was immediately approached by other Senators seeking the same protection for their state. This bill, The National Monument Public Participation Act, will provide that protection to all states. The National Monument Public Participation Act amends the Antiquities Act to require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide an opportunity for public involvement prior to the designation of a national monument. It establishes procedures to give the public and local, State, and federal governments adequate notice and opportunity to comment on, and participate in, the formulation of plans for the declaration of national monuments on public lands. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the unilateral authority to create a national monument where none existed before. In fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to set lands aside. It is important to note that with very few exceptions, these declarations occurred before enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which recognized the need for public involvement in such issues and mandated public comment periods before such decisions are made. The most recent use of the Antiquities Act came on September 18, 1996, with Presidential Proclamation 6920, Establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Without including Utah's Governor, Senators, congressional delegation, the State legislature, county commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off- limits forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah. What the President did in Utah, without public input, could also be done in Idaho or any other States where the federal government has a presence. That must not be allowed to happen. My state of Idaho is 63 percent federal lands. Within Idaho's boundaries, we have one National Historic Park, one National Reserve, two National Recreation Areas, and five Wilderness Areas, just to name the major federally designated natural resource areas. This amounts to approximately 4.8 million acres, or to put things in perspective, the size of the state of New Jersey. Each of these designations has had public involvement and consent of Congress before being designated. As you can tell, the public process has worked in the past, in my state, and I believe it will continue to work in the future. In Idaho, each of these National designations generated concerns among those affected by the designation, but with the public process, we were able to work through most of the concerns before the designation was made. Individuals who would be affected by the National designation had time to prepare, but Utah was not as fortunate. With the overnight designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the local communities, and the State and federal agencies were left to pick up the pieces and work out all the ``details.'' The President's action in Utah has been a wake-up call to people across America.We all want to preserve what is best in our States, and I understand and support the need to protect valuable resources. That is why this bill will not, in any way, affect the ability of the federal government to make emergency withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). If an area is truly worthy of a National Monument designation, Congress will make that designation during the time frame provided in FLPMA. Our public lands are a national asset that we all treasure and enjoy. Westerners are especially proud of their public lands and have a stake in the management of these lands, but people everywhere also understand that much of their economic future is tied up in what happens on their public lands. In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, and recreation access have all come under attack by this administration seemingly bent upon kowtowing to a segment of our population that wants these uses kicked off our public lands. Everyone wants public lands decisions to be made in an open and inclusive process. No one wants the President, acting alone, to unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. We certainly don't work that way in the West. There is a recognition that with common sense, a balance can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to put down roots while at the same time protecting America's great natural resources. In my view, the President's actions in Utah were beyond the pale, and for that reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate I am introducing this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the bill I introduce is the Hydroelectric Licensing Process Improvement Act of 1999. As its title suggests, the purpose of the bill is to improve the process by which non-federal hydroelectric projects are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I introduced a similar bill late in the 105th Congress after hearings on this issue in both the House and Senate. Hydropower represents ten percent of the energy produced in the United States, and approximately 85% of all renewable energy generation. This, Mr. President, is a significant portion of our nation's electricity, produced without air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, and it is accomplished at relatively low cost. The Commission for many years since its creation in 1920, controlled our nation's water power potential with uncompromising authority. However, since 1972, a number of environmental statutes, amendments to the Federal Power Act, Commission regulations, licensing and policy decisions, and several critical court decisions, has made the Commission's licensing process extremely costly, time consuming, and, at times, arbitrary. Indeed, the current Commission licensing program is burdened with mixed mandates and redundant bureaucracy and prone to gridlock and litigation. Under current law, several federal agencies are required to set conditions for licenses without regard to the effects those conditions have on project economics, energy benefits, impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and values protected by other statutes and regulations. Far too often we have agencies fighting agencies and issuing inconsistent demands. The consequent delays in processing hydropower applications result in significant business costs and lost capacity. For example, according to a September 1997 study of the U.S. Department of Energy, since 1987, of 52 peaking projects relicensed by the Commission, four projects increased capacity, and 48 decreased capacity. In simple terms, those 48 projects became less productive as a result of the relicensing process at the Commission than they were prior to relicensing. Ninety- two percent of the peaking projects since 1987 lost capacity. In addition, faced with the uncertainties currently plaguing the relicensing process, some existing licensees are contemplating abandonment of their projects. This is of concern to the nation because two-thirds of all non-federal hydropower capacity is up for relicensing in the next fifteen years. By the year 2010, 220 projects will be subject to the relicensing process. Publicly owned hydropower projects constitute nearly 50% of the total capacity that will be up for renewal. The problems resulting in lost capacity, coupled with the momentous changes occurring in the electricity industry and the increasing need for emissions free sources of power, all underscore the need for Congressional action to reform hydroelectric licensing. Moreoever, the loss of a hydropower project means more than the loss of clean, efficient, renewable electric power. Hydropower projects provide drinking water, flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, irrigation, transportation, environmental enhancement funding and recreation benefits. Also, due to its unique load-following capability, peaking capacity and voltage stability attributes, hydropower plays a critical role in maintaining our nation's reliable electric service. My bill, which is currently co-sponsored by fellow Idahoan Senator Mike Crapo, and Senators Conrad Burns and Rod Grams, will remedy the inefficient and complex Commission licensing process by ensuring that federal agencies involved in the process act in a timely and accountable manner. My bill does not change or modify any existing environmental laws, nor remove regulatory authority from various agencies. It does not call for the repeal of mandatory conditioning authority of appropriate federal agencies. Rather, it requires participating agencies to consider, and be accountable for, the full effects of their actions before imposing mandatory conditions on a Commission issued license. It is clear to me and many of my colleagues here in the Senate that hydropower is at risk. Clearly, one of the most important tasks for energy policymakers in the 21st Century is to develop an energy strategy that will ensure an adequate supply of reasonably priced, reliable energy to all American consumers in an environmentally responsible manner. The relicensing of non-federal hydropower can and should continue to be an important and viable element in this strategy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.