Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. So the amendment to strike covers all action including the substitute language the Senator from Nevada has just offered?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I understand the time on the Grassley second degree was 40 minutes, 20 to each side equally divided.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. I will be brief in the beginning because we have now heard from the chairman of the authorizing committee. I share with the chairman the kind of frustration to which he has just spoken as it relates to livestock prices and transparency and reportability and ownership. There is no question that there is concern in the livestock industry. I come from a large beef-producing State. I was once a rancher. I am very close to the livestock industry of my State. They have spoken to me about this. We have talked about the issue. Let me take the Senate back before today to December, when I voted for the Johnson-Harkin-Grassley amendment. I voted for it because I was told these were the words that would deal with concentration or packer ownership. I was concerned at that time, but I was also concerned about the myriad new tools being used in the marketplace of sales and processing and distribution and horizontal and vertical integration and regional differences and operational capacities. All of these things have really not been talked about by the chairman or by Senator Grassley or by Senator Johnson. And all of a sudden a variety of very skilled attorneys began to arise and say: Wait a moment. We think there is a very real problem, a very real definitional problem as it relates to the kinds of concerns that are very real in the marketplace today. The chairman talked about a firestorm of concern erupting. You bet there was. All of a sudden, what about brand name relationships? What about what we call operational capacity in livestock deficit areas, where contracting and relationship keeps what we call the throughput of a slaughter operation so that we can sustain it and its employees? Had that been dealt a fatal blow? Were we really dealing with something that maybe we hadn't effectively thought through? The firestorm produced a real concern. I worked with Senator Grassley in good faith. He has worked in good faith. Out of that, he has produced a second-degree amendment to mine. My amendment says, let's spend a couple of hundred days, put the experts together. Don't tread on ice so thin that we could collapse the way the livestock marketing operations work today, the way the new relationships that are building dynamics in the marketplace are working. They went ahead. Over the weekend a second-degree amendment was produced in an effort to try to define what control is, because that really is part of the fundamental issue. I could read it. I think it has already been read. It will be discussed. I believe this, in part, is a rush to judgment to correct a problem that is yet not effectively studied and/or defined. I am not talking about a study that goes on for year after year. I am talking about us coming back next year, having directed USDA in 200-plus days to look at the full ramifications of the livestock industry and the slaughter operations, the packers, the marketers, the wholesalers, the retailers, the brand names, the carcass quality, all of those kinds of things that are an integrated relationship in a new market today that producers are developing with packers that we are now deciding--or at least some are--is a wrong relationship, and somehow we ought to legislatively step in and, by law, fix it. I am not opposed to fixing something that is broken, but I am not at all convinced that it is yet broken. It may be influenced. It might be tampered with. I don't know that yet. I think an effective study could do that. I will agree that a study a few years ago indicated there was manipulation in the market place, there was a minority record that said that captive herd and packer concentration in that regard was a problem. At the same time, I don't think we rush to judgment here and collapse a marketing system that is now growing and creating stability--maybe not the price wanted but clearly stability and brand name and quality to the consumers of our country that is in reality strengthening the market. That is with what we have to deal. I don't believe the second degree gets us there. It has not been effectively studied. It is in the eye of the legal mind that created it last weekend--not months ago, not with hearings, just this last weekend. Why don't we take a breather, timeout, 200 days? Examine this amendment against the reality of control and market relationships and contract relationships, and see if this is where this country wants to direct its livestock industry. I would hope not. I hope my colleagues will join with me in opposing this second degree and, as a result, passing the study dealing with this issue. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to address the subject of eco- terrorism and the assault on our public lands. Eco-terrorism is described as any crime committed in the name of saving nature. And these ``crimes'' range from civil disobedience to crimes officially designated as a terrorist act by the FBI. In January a band of criminals who call themselves the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the North American Animal Liberation Front (ALF), released a report on their combined crime spree during 2001. They also chose to announce a day of national action for February 12th apparently to protest Congressional hearings on their activities. While I agree that our public lands needs to be saved for the use of future generations, I believe this should be accomplished through active lands management that promotes the mission statements of our public lands agencies. I denounce those who believe that saving nature means driving metal spikes through trees or burning buildings, actions that threaten human lives. While these folks characterize burning down research centers, homes, and businesses as a form of self-expression protected by the First Amendment, most Americans would question these wrongheaded beliefs. Neither our government nor the American public will support the activities of ELF and ALF. These groups of eco-terrorist hide from the law, there organizations have no rosters, no board of directors; they work in ``cells''; and they use guerrilla warfare tactics so as not to inform on others. They carry out their acts and then anonymously take credit on behalf of the Earth Liberation Front. They feel it is their duty to commit life- threatening crimes against society to protect nature. Yet they post guidelines on underground websites and give directions as to how to spike trees and build bombs. Insurance companies are also starting to recognize the risk of eco- terrorism by broadening their definitions of ``terrorist activities/ organizations'' and increasing premiums. As a result, the timber industry is bearing a greater financial burden. If a group that meets the insurance industry definition burns or destroys any equipment, it is NOT covered by insurance. Insurance companies intend to include Earth First!, ELF, and ALF in these new definitions. Let me give my colleagues, an example of this change. The coverage premium for a helicopter was $10,200 for $5,000,000 liability coverage. The premium increased to $24,000 for $1,000,000 worth of coverage. This is a 140 percent increase in premium for an 80 percent decrease in coverage. This is outrageous! Even the insurance companies recognize the dangers involved in eco-terrorism. The destruction by ELF and ALF has not been directed at just timber companies, though. Land grant universities are also a target because of the research they provide. To those struggling to pay for the education of their college-age children, the recent ELF and ALF 2001 action report makes for interesting reading. The ELF and ALF claim to have destroyed parts, or all, of several buildings at four major land grant universities and to have attempted to burn down additional buildings at several other universities. Administrators faced with the cost of rebuilding facilities as well as recreating important research surely now question ELF's definition of ``nonviolent.'' The list of ELF and ALF actions against our educational system is sobering. It includes the University of Washington--Center for Urban Horticulture, $5.6 million; the Oregon State University--destroyed poplar trees and cottonwood trees, $200,000; the University of Arizona--Mt. Graham International Observatory power line, equipment and vehicles monkey wrenched, $200,000; the University of Idaho--Biotech building spray painted and survey stakes pulled, $20,000; the Ohio State University--locks on doors super-glued and spray painted, no cost estimate; the Michigan Tech University--Noblet Forestry Building and Forest Engineering Lab attempted arson, no cost estimate; and the Cornell University--Duck Laboratory ducks stolen, no cost estimate. The ELF continued its reign of terror as recently as February 3 when it set fire to heavy equipment and a trailer at the University of Minnesota's new plant genetics laboratory. We're not just talking about the destruction of inanimate public property here. What of the thousands of hours of research that were destroyed in these senseless not-so-random acts of violence? Is it fair to the scientists whose work was destroyed in these facilities, to tell them the American public thinks so little of their work that we will accept these acts as legitimate political statements? Some of these scientists have spent a career working on this research, working to discover ways to make our world and our lives better. Some advocates demand we protect bio-diversity by setting aside vast areas of forests because they believe a potential cure for cancer or some other disease may be found in these forests. Shouldn't we also be concerned about the potential cures for cancer and other diseases, or other technological advances, that might have been under development at these research centers? The destruction of these buildings and the research housed within these institutions is no less important than the bio-diversity harbored in our forests. The American people, the press, the Congress cannot stand by and ignore these events. Given the number of training sessions carried out each summer by these organizations, as well as the more mainline environmental groups that teach impressionable young people how to destroy property, I expect our federal government to put more effort into ending this domestic terrorism. I'm also concerned about the financial support groups such as ELF, ALF, the Ruckus Society, and others receive from the large environmental trusts, and others, who support this unlawful behavior. Grants to these organizations that result in the destruction of public and private property make the funding organizations accessories to these crimes. When we turn a blind eye to these types of activities, and we tell ourselves that these are just young people searching for meaning in their lives, or that these folks are only participating in the political process, we do ourselves and our neighbors a disservice. When we stand idly by and tell ourselves that these are just timber companies or giant corporations that can afford these events, we diminish ourselves, our society, and the freedom that we enjoy in this great country. The simple fact is: burning down buildings and destroying research facilities and the research housed in those facilities, is a crime, and there is no reason, political or other, that this type of behavior should be accepted by anyone.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Pension Plan Protection Act, being introduced today by the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and others. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important bill and commend the Senator for her leadership on this issue. This bill will help employees and protect their families and their retirement nest eggs. It will require employers to take reasonable responsibility toward employees in administering plans, increase transparency, improve information and disclosure, increase employee choice and control, treat management the same as the rank-and-file during blackout periods, and help prevent auditor conflicts of interest. This is a bill that can and should become law quickly. It includes most of the reforms recommended by the President and representing the export judgment of a Cabinet-level, interagency task force. It also includes additional improvements. These protections will be strong, but measured. Unlike some other ideas being floated today, these reforms are not arbitrary. They are fair and uniform, but not one-size-fits-all. They keep the focus where it belongs, on protecting, empowering, and informing workers. I realize that other legislation may still be forthcoming, regarding accounting practices, securities management, or other issues. But that should not delay us from acting now on reforms that we all know are needed. Workers should not be left vulnerable for one unnecessary day while the Congress holds endless hearings in search of a ``perfect'' package. I urge my colleagues to act promptly and pass this pro-worker bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. I am not sure one can get much clearer than the language of Bob Stallman as he talks for the thousands and thousands of members of the Farm Bureau across the Nation and, most importantly, in the 18 Western States that are most dramatically affected by the Reid provision. A long while ago, long before the Presiding Officer or I ever thought about coming to the Senate--or maybe our parents even thought they might have sons that would come to the Senate --this Congress decided the best way to solve water problems in the arid Western States and western territories was to allow those States and their governments to make those determinations. Why? Because water was so very scarce, and only the Western States with their perspective could determine the allocation of water. It was never true this side of the Mississippi where there was 30 or 40 or 50 inches of rainfall on an annual basis. Water was viewed sometimes as a problem, not an asset or not a rare commodity, but that is not true in Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, California, or Wyoming where water is truly a scarce commodity. Over decades of time, our States have very carefully and cautiously allocated that water. My colleague from Idaho, and the Senator from Colorado, spoke about some of the methods, the compacts, the water laws, and also the sensitivity that water had to be left instream to take care of endangered species, and those decisions had been made in the States where they most appropriately ought to be made to assure that critical balance in the aridness of the West, of where the water was, how it got allocated and how it got used. Never before have we attempted to reach over State law by the character of the Reid amendment and create a rather perverse incentive that said we will reward you if you will take land out of production and, by the way, in doing so, you have to put your water in a waterbank to be reallocated. I do not believe that is the right or the prerogative of the Federal Government in any of its policies under any incentive to do so. That is the right of the States, the State legislators, their State water boards of resources, and the methods by which they have established water allocation historically and currently. That is why it is critically important that the Crapo amendment pass. It is so very important for all of the West that that happen and that we never allow our Government in any way to infringe upon those rights. We in Idaho, as is true of those other 17 States, are very sensitive to the needs of wildlife as it relates to the needs of the human species, as it relates to the needs of agriculture and the consumptive uses versus the conservation uses. We have worked constantly to strike that balance, and we do so today. Water use and water allocation are a dynamic process in our States, as it must be because it is a rare commodity, constantly being demanded by someone for another purpose and another use. This city and those who work in these Halls do not collectively have the understanding that our colleagues in the West have for these unique purposes. That is why I stand in support of the Crapo/Craig amendment this evening and hope our colleagues will join with us in its passage to change the provision of the Reid water language in S. 1731, better known as the water conservation program. I believe that proposal is a war on western water rights and western prerogative. Let us not get it started. Let us snuff it out before the first shot is fired. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have been listening for the last good number of minutes as my colleague from Wyoming gave what was not only an eloquent but true and most entertaining explanation about the validity of the Crapo amendment and why this Senate should pass it. There is no question in my mind or any westerner who lives in the high desert States of the Great Basin, all the way to the Mississippi River, of the criticality of water and why States over long periods of time have been very cautious in not only its allocation but its relationship to the human species. I hope the explanation of the Senator from Wyoming serves us all well as we consider this amendment. It appears there is no one else in the Chamber at this moment to debate the Crapo amendment, so I ask unanimous consent it be set aside for the purpose of offering another amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, as we debated the farm bill before the Christmas recess, I voted to support an amendment offered by Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, and Senator Wellstone to ban packer ownership of livestock. Since that amendment passed, I and other Senators have had serious discussions, along with the livestock industry and the packing industry, as to what this amendment meant and what it will mean if it becomes law out in the marketplace. As a result of that, I am offering an amendment tonight that would, in essence, set this provision aside. I am talking about that provision of the section entitled ``the prohibition on packer ownership feeding or controlling livestock.'' That is an amendment to section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act. It is clear to me and to many others that there are a great many questions being asked at this moment about the scope of the language and its potential impact on the meatpacker and the livestock producer. In fact, much has been written on both sides with respect to the legal and economic ramifications of the language. This fact lends greater credence to my suggestion in this amendment that we approach a complete study by USDA of the intent of this language and what it would mean in these kinds of new owner relationships. Since the Senate approved the language in December, I am sure many have heard from those in favor of and opposed to the language. Seldom have I heard such impassioned opinions on any given issue. Indeed, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council, both leading groups representing livestock producers, have policies opposing the proposed ban. Still other groups support the ban. Meanwhile, eight of the Nation's leading agricultural economists released a paper that raised nine serious concerns about the potential negative consequences this ban would have. Among them is the damage that would be done by revising strategic alliances between packers and producers, taking us back to a time when meat was treated as a nameless commodity rather than a distinct, branded consumer food product. The U.S. meat and livestock industries also would be at a distinct disadvantage, I believe, under the current language, to foreign beef and pork processing competitors with the production capacity and marketing ability to work with livestock producers to form the very strategic alliances, joint ventures, and ownership arrangements that this language seeks to make illegal in the United States. The advances we have made in foreign markets could be put at very serious risk. These economists also point out that producers who enter into marketing agreements with packers are better able to obtain financing for their operations. I know of several instances of those relationships where those very contracts allow the producer to gain the necessary financing with his financial institution. Without these agreements, financing for growth and capital investment could clearly be threatened. Lenders would not have the assurances that producers seeking loans had a market for their animals. Congress would be taking a critical risk management tool away from producers in certain instances. Is this what the ban's proponents hoped to accomplish for their livestock constituents? I really don't think that was the intent. And I must tell you, Mr. President, when I initially voted for the ban, that was clearly not my intent. Still other legal analyses have offered a response to this economic analysis. The very intensity of the ongoing debate over this issue raises the question: Why throw support to a measure punctuated by so many question marks as this current language has? Call me a pragmatist if you will, but when I hear such genuine concern expressed by so many of my constituents, by leading economists, and by legal experts about language that was never vetted through a committee, a hearing not held on it, and legal experts not allowed to give their opinion on it, it seems to me that we should not act as hastily as I believe we did, and as I know I did. My concerns have been validated by the disparate positions taken by many farm and livestock groups. I have learned that large economic implications may exist for several States, including that of my colleague, Senator Johnson, from South Dakota. Reportedly at stake are about 3,000 jobs in a South Dakota packing plant, and 4,000 jobs associated with the Premium Standard Farms of Missouri. I also know of significant consequences to the economy and jobs in the State of Colorado. In this current time of such a sensitive economy in agriculture, I believe 10,000 more people without jobs is not a correct path to walk down. In my State of Idaho, it could significantly impact the relationship between certain producers in my State and certain packers. Given the questions I have asked about a ban on packer ownership of livestock, I cannot lend my support to the Grassley-Johnson-Wellstone language. I urge my colleagues to consider my amendment requiring a speedy but thorough review of the potential impact of a ban on packer ownership, control and feeding of livestock. The word ``ownership,'' and the word ``control'' are key to all of these relationships. Under my amendment, the USDA would conduct a study in cooperation with the livestock industry--all of those within the industry--to determine the impact that prohibiting packers from owning, feeding, and controlling livestock intended for slaughter more than 14 days prior to slaughter would have on producers, rural communities, private or cooperative joint ventures in packing facilities, marketing prices for livestock, the ability of producers to obtain credit, specialized marketing programs, the ability of packers to compete in foreign markets, and future investment decisions by packers about plant locations. This study would be completed within 270 days of the date of the enactment of this law. I think it is important that we move timely to this. It is not my intent to stall it. It is my intent to get clear answers for all of us and for all of those associated with this issue in the livestock industry. I have visited with Senator Grassley. We have been working cooperatively to get language that is better understood and that we believe would meet the test of the court. Senator Grassley is working with the Farm Bureau at this moment to do so. That amendment might well be available tomorrow or early next week, and I will take a look at it to see whether it fits my concerns and the concerns of a variety of other interests and relationships as they relate to the new dynamics of the livestock industry. I am certainly willing to give Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson and others the benefit of the doubt if that language can be arrived at. But if it can't be--and let me tell you, legal language is left to the beholder and the interpreter at the time--it is clear that a test needs to be run. This Senate deserves a clear determination or interpretation of what all of this means. That is exactly the intent of the amendment that I offer this evening. Let us act on this important issue with the foresight that a thorough review can offer rather than to seek to undo damage apparent in the glaring light of hindsight. Literally, we could destroy thousands of contractual relationships. We could even impact markets and future markets if this language is not clear and clearly understood in the law itself. Lawsuits, court orders, interpretations of or arbitrary decisions made as a result of language that is not clearly understood is not what this Senate should be about in the crafting of good farm policy for the livestock industry. That is the intent of my amendment. I hope my colleagues will read it, understand it, and I ask their support. Mr. President, I see the chairman of the Agriculture Committee is in the Chamber at this moment. With that consideration, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from the West and my partner from Idaho, Mike Crapo, to support an amendment to strike a section from this bill that deals with the very critical issue of western water. This area is being called the water conservation program. I will submit for the Record a letter from the President of the American Farm Bureau. Basically, he puts it rather clearly: The American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors in a special meeting on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, voted to oppose Senate passage of the farm bill if it contains the water language that your amendment is intended to strike. I ask unanimous consent that the American Farm Bureau letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Pension Plan Protection Act, being introduced today by the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and others. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important bill and commend the Senator for her leadership on this issue. This bill will help employees and protect their families and their retirement nest eggs. It will require employers to take reasonable responsibility toward employees in administering plans, increase transparency, improve information and disclosure, increase employee choice and control, treat management the same as the rank-and-file during blackout periods, and help prevent auditor conflicts of interest. This is a bill that can and should become law quickly. It includes most of the reforms recommended by the President and representing the export judgment of a Cabinet-level, interagency task force. It also includes additional improvements. These protections will be strong, but measured. Unlike some other ideas being floated today, these reforms are not arbitrary. They are fair and uniform, but not one-size-fits-all. They keep the focus where it belongs, on protecting, empowering, and informing workers. I realize that other legislation may still be forthcoming, regarding accounting practices, securities management, or other issues. But that should not delay us from acting now on reforms that we all know are needed. Workers should not be left vulnerable for one unnecessary day while the Congress holds endless hearings in search of a ``perfect'' package. I urge my colleagues to act promptly and pass this pro-worker bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Cloture Motion

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come this evening to add to the underlying legislation that we are now calling a stimulus package, or at least an effort on the part of Congress and this Senate to produce a Senate version of stimulus that we might get to the House and into conference, an amount that I think is a clear and important part of that stimulus package. As President Bush has said, Americans know economic security can vanish in an instant without health security. Today nearly 40 million Americans lack health insurance, a crisis that can only worsen today's climate of job loss and double-digit health premium increases. In 1997, Congress launched a test program to see if medical savings accounts could provide families with health security. That program has succeeded. Despite unnecessary restrictions, over one-third of the participants were previously uninsured. A medical savings account effort to extend coverage to the uninsured at a fraction of the cost of government health care programs has worked in this economy. Rather than letting this promising reform program expire this year, my colleague from New Jersey and I have introduced an amendment to make medical savings accounts permanent and widely available. That is the thrust of this amendment. I have some great accounts of our country's citizens who have used this advantage, many of them hard-working men and women, middle or lower middle class Americans. Let me cite an example. These are the women. Kay Heine, Kristina Anderson Wright, and Rebecca Turner had this to say for the Wisconsin State Journal: All three of us are working, middle-class mothers. Two of us are single moms. We all have medical savings accounts that provide health insurance for our families. Our message to people in Washington in plain, unmistakable English, is that MSAs work for working families. So I hope as we consider the stimulus package, my colleagues would consider this amendment, make it a part of the stimulus package to not allow this very important program to expire and for these citizens to lose it, and, more importantly, that we should be adding citizens by giving them the opportunity to have medical savings accounts as a part of their insurance portfolio. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), would vote ``yea.''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the current order of business?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on behalf of the Republican leader, I object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last week we voted on an amendment by Senator Johnson that would prohibit meat packers from feeding, owning, or controlling livestock. I voted for this amendment because of concerns from my livestock producers that the packers have too much control of the market. Since that time, I have received more information on how this provision would be implemented. It has come to my attention that the language as written would prohibit forward contracting, future contracts, and other pricing mechanisms. This is significant information. Indeed, had I known it at the time of the vote, I would have voted differently. For that reason, I took the only action available to me to correct the situation. I filed two alternative amendments to the farm bill: one that would prohibit the Johnson language from going into effect, and another that would substitute a study to determine the economic impact of such a proposal. The proposed ban on packer ownership, as offered by Senator Johnson, could cause widespread economic harm in the livestock and packing industries, but no one has explored what the true implications would be. My amendment would require the US Department of Agriculture to complete this study within nine months. I have always been a free market conservative; however, I regularly hear from ranchers expressing concerns about concentration in the meat packing industry. In Idaho we have two packers, and the only thing worse than just two packers, is to have only one. I am concerned that the language as passe4d could result in further consolidation within the packing industry. While I agree with my producers that we have a problem, we must be sure that our solution does not create an even bigger long-term problem. meat packers

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Boxer introduced last Thursday, December 13, 2001, the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act that will grant Federal funding for State and Tribal salmon recovery efforts in California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. I would like to thank her and her staff for their hard work and for Senator Boxer's determination to have a bipartisan bill on salmon recovery. I also would like to thank my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, Senators Smith and Wyden from Oregon, and Senator Feinstein from California, for their valuable input that clearly helped to create responsible and effective bipartisan legislation to recover salmon. I enjoyed working with all of them and their staff. For over 20 years, California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, have attempted mightily to sustain salmon runs in river basins throughout the West and, along with the Federal Government, have invested billions of dollars in that effort. Many individual citizens in my State of Idaho and some special interest groups from around the country have quite frequently criticized justly the expenditures of these large sums of money for salmon recovery. The criticism often pointed to poor coordination among State, Federal, and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies, as well as to ineffective recovery programs developed either by those agencies or under their supervision. The Pacific Salmon Recovery Act, S. 1825, takes aim at these infirmities and establishes a framework that will ensure better coordination and more effective recovery programs. I am convinced that we'll get better ``bang for the buck'' if this bill is enacted. However, salmon recovery is complex. Recent scientific research has underscored the difficulty in finding quick solutions to salmon recovery. Scientists have been candid in stating unequivocally that there is no ``silver bullet'' that can cure what is causing diminishing salmon returns. The focus on dam removal during the last several years has retarded progress in recovering salmon. The majority of a salmon's life cycle is spent in the ocean. It is there that the salmon nourishes itself and prepares for the arduous journey back to spawning areas. What is becoming increasingly clear from new ocean research is that warm ocean temperature is causing a severe reduction in the ocean's salmon carrying capacity. More research in this area will provide helpful insight as to what can be done to adjust to that devastating fact. The recent change to colder Pacific Ocean temperatures is widely credited for the record salmon returns that the Pacific Northwest has experienced this year. It is my hope that a more open dialogue on ways to approach salmon recovery will ensure continued progress on effective measures that will both recover these fish and protect the economy of the West. It is my belief that this bill will enhance the prospect of achieving that goal. There are many good provisions in this bill. For example, it authorizes $350 million a year over the next five years to be spent on salmon recovery, a sizable amount that I hope will be appropriated by Congress each of those years. But I would like to highlight the peer review provisions in particular. Those provisions require each State or Tribal science based recovery activity to undergo scientific peer review before that activity will be funded with Federal money. It is modeled on the very successful peer review requirement contained in the Northwest Power Act for State and Tribal salmon recovery programs that get Pacific Northwest ratepayer money. Ensuring accountability for large expenditures of taxpayer money is essential to keep the trust of the American taxpayer. The American taxpayers are entitled to a fair accounting and an objective review of the underlying science that supports many of the very expensive recovery plans, particularly the salmon supplementation and habitat restoration programs, that will be developed by the States and participating Tribes. The peer review requirement in this bill will provide the reasonable assurances of competency for those expensive programs that the taxpayer deserves. Again, I thank my colleagues from Idaho, California, and Oregon for their strong support and commitment to include Idaho in the quest to achieve successful salmon recovery in the West and for their tireless efforts over the last several months to draft the appropriate legislative framework in which to accomplish the complex task of recovering those marvelous and important fish.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today, as many of my colleagues have, to speak for this long awaited piece of legislation. I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy for the tremendous work they have done in bringing this effort together. There have been a wide range of differing views, clearly because of the differences of philosophy and attitudes about how the Federal Government should engage in the business of education at the primary and secondary levels. At the same time, clearly the Nation is replete with studies that indicate our children are not achieving at the levels they should and that the commitment is not as much as it could be, even though many States such as mine struggle as much as is possible to commit the public resources to education and at the same time knowing that in many instances it is woefully inadequate. We finally begin I think to recognize--this legislation reflects it-- that simply throwing money at the educational establishment will not solve our educational problems. That has been largely the argument at the Federal level for a good number of years: The only thing public education lacks is money. We now know that is not the total answer. We needed to cut Federal redtape to implement long overdue reforms. I think we truly want to see improvements in our educational system. There is no one in this Chamber or across America who doesn't want the goal of greater recruitment, higher quality of education for our young people, and, of course, our young people in the broad sense achieving at higher levels. This bill, while authorizing a substantial increase in Federal support for education, does not simply continue funding programs which have no track record of success or, even worse, which have a proven record of failure. We did this in the past. I think the result is evident. We spent more money for little to no improvement in the educational programs to which our young people were being subjected. Of course, the end result was obvious. Our children were not achieving at the levels that I think all of us would have wished compared with other educational programs around the world. We were not measuring up. The bill on which our conference committee worked so long and hard does not continue the old ways. That is why I am in this Chamber today. I think many of us who were skeptics and concerned, and watched very closely, recognize the work of this legislation has been long overdue in making the changes to the Federal programs and giving the States the flexibility to use the Federal dollars to implement programs and reforms, and, in much of it, it is their own reforms. For the first time, the Federal Government has made a real commitment to returning power to the States. This bill cuts through the redtape, as I mentioned earlier, allowing States to use Federal money to implement programs that they think are important, instead of programs that the Federal Government or the bureaucrats at the Department of Education think are the higher of the priorities. We know that in all of our States education varies, it differs, and in many instances it should. While the fundamental learning skills are always critical and uniformity is necessary, clearly, different States wish to attract and offer different approaches. I continually hear from principals, superintendents, and school board members about how their job would be made much easier if the Federal Government would let them do what they know how to do instead of trying to tell them how to do it. We finally paid attention to them. I think we are going to offer them the flexibility for which they have asked. All we ask in return is results. That is a rather simple equation. This demand for demonstrable results is indeed--and some have charged--a Federal mandate. I have been in this Chamber more than once before speaking against Federal mandates. But this one Federal mandate replaces numerous other mandates which are eliminated throughout the bill. This mandate is also unlike most of the other Federal mandates that are incorporated in current law today; it is fully funded. In fact, the bill requires full funding for the cost of the tests which will be developed due to its mandates. And if we do not fund those costs, the States do not have to implement the tests. That is a fairly reasonable and appropriate formula. If we do not own up to our promise and our commitment under the law, then the States do not have to follow suit. I suggest this bill isn't perfect, but then again my guess is most legislation that comes to the floor, depending on one Senator's or the other's point of view, would not meet that test. For example, it does not authorize full funding for the federally mandated Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It does provide substantial new moneys for the Federal program to meet the commitment, though. I hope next year we will fully reauthorize IDEA and fund it. That was a program where we promised but we never delivered. As a result of it being a Federal law on the ground that superintendents and principals had to live up to, there was a phenomenal drain of local education money to that program away from other programs and other commitments to education that were made. So, literally, local education funding was providing for a Federal law and a Federal mandate under IDEA. I am not going to stand here this afternoon and debate the value of IDEA, but certainly the commitment was made to fund it, and we are moving in that direction with substantially more moneys; we ought to continue to do that. What does it do? It frees up local money to go into education where it was intended. I think that is why it is so critically important. I think this bill provided by the conference committee, however, is a better vision of educational reform than the bill voted out of the Senate in June. I am glad we are finally getting it to the President for his signature. In the past few weeks, too much important legislation has been held up on the floor for partisan reasons or for somebody thinking they were gaining political points out in the field. Well, they may be gaining, they may be losing, but there is one very real thing about this legislation. If it passes, and if it is signed by the President, America's children win. That is the most important nature of any good education bill. It has been a top priority of this President, as it has been a top priority of this Senate for a good number of years, to move to improve public education, to participate in it at the Federal level, as limited as it may be, in a way that it enhances the authority at the local level to have greater flexibility in decisionmaking and ultimately, we hope, produce a higher quality of education for our young people. I am proud to support the final conference report. I am confident it will make important strides toward what President Bush calls the right vision, and that is that no child should be left behind by America's educational system. So, once again, I thank the two Senators who, along with others, have worked hard on this and have brought it to the floor for final consideration. I support the education bill's conference report and hope we move quickly on it. It is a good and right approach and a great Christmas present to America's schoolchildren. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the last few years have been very hard on all of Agriculture because what farmers are getting for crops often does not cover the cost of production, let alone make a profit. Because of the prolonged slump in commodity prices, earlier this year we were on the floor debating additional assistance to farmers. I supported the $5.5 billion in emergency farm aid for the last 3 years, because I believe if we want our farmers to stay in business and our rural communities to survive, we must help them until prices come back. However, Congress cannot keep doing these ad hoc disaster bills. We must provide more certainly to farmers across the Nation, which is why I am pleased Congress is taking up the farm bill. However, I am disappointed that such a bipartisan issue has been made partisan. It is my hope that we still have time to pass a farm bill with good agriculture policy to help our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. That is why I support the Cochran-Roberts alternative. A proposal that will provide support for our farmers when they need it and not send signals to produce when the market can not bear the production. Harkin has high loan rates which cause farmers to produce for the loan deficiency payment, the over production cause prices to be further depressed. I also support the improvements to the sugar program. The authority for inventory management will help restore balance to U.S. sugar market and prevent more of our farmers from going out of business. The elimination of the marketing assessment was long over due, as sugar was the only commodity to be taxed for debt reduction. Sugar is an important crop to my state and these improvements will help it remain a viable part of Idaho agriculture. Harkin does all of this and gets rid of the loan forfeiture penalty. This proposal does not contain a so- called national dairy program that benefits some dairy farmers at the expense of farmers in my State. We should work on a national policy that is fair to all farmers and that makes us more competitive on the world market. I am pleased that dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas were included as a farm program. Loan rates and LDP's will help these crops remain competitive with wheat and canola in rotations along the northern tier states, this is in Harkin. I also support the nonrecourse loans for wool and honey. Our wool growers have seen wool become an expense rather than additional income from their sheep, this program will help to overcome that. Both wool and honey, as other commodities, have been adversely impacted imports and it is time these commodities have programs as other commodities do. I am pleased with the increases in EQIP, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, funding and the improvements to this program that is vital to our cattlemen who are working to comply with water quality issues. The grasslands reserve program is a proposal I introduced earlier this year and I am pleased that it was incorporated in this amendment. This proposal will help keep working landscapes intact which will benefit the ranchers, rural communities and wildlife that are dependent upon them. There is much more to this amendment in all of the other titles but I will not go into detail, rather I would like to congratulate Senators Cochran and Roberts for assembling a well- balanced piece of legislation that works to address the different needs in every region of our country.