Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I inquire how much time remains on my side.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the Santorum amendment and the Craig amendment be switched and that the time allotted be the same. Senator Santorum is still perfecting a portion of his amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I inquire if the Senator has anyone else who would wish to speak to it on his side. If not, I will wrap up.

Mr. CRAIG. I allocate myself 5 minutes so I would like to conclude the debate of my amendment. Let me speak briefly to what the chairman of the Finance Committee said. First of all, I ask him to read my sense of the Senate. It has nothing to do with taxes at this moment. His underlying argument that the responsibility for MSAs, when you are making substantive changes in current law, is a finance responsibility and a tax provision, is correct. My amendment is not a tax provision. It is asking the Senate to speak to the importance of doing what the Senator from Montana has said he will do this year. That is what my amendment says--that medical savings accounts are important. Do they belong in a Patients' Bill of Rights? Absolutely they do. If you want to optimize the rights of a patient or of a potential patient in America's health care system, then you give them full access--not limited and restricted access to medical savings accounts. Let me correct one other thing that I think is important. As to this old bugaboo ``it is just for the rich'' that we heard coming from the chairman of the Finance Committee, will he tell me that one-third of the 100,000 people who are uninsured and have never had insurance before because they couldn't afford it are somehow ``closeted rich'' people? I doubt it very much. These are the working poor of America-- not the working wealthy--who found an opportunity to provide health care for themselves, their spouses, and their families because the Federal Government, through the Congress, opened up a limited window of opportunity for them to use a medical savings account to their advantage. That is what that is all about. The House is looking to provide medical savings accounts in their Patients' Bill of Rights. The President supports medical savings accounts. It is not an agriculture bill. It is not a bill for the Interior Department. It is a bill for Americans seeking health care in the system today. Why shouldn't we debate that right to have optimum access to the market on a Patients' Bill of Rights? Because it doesn't involve a lawyer? That is a good reason to debate it, because it doesn't involve a lawyer and it doesn't involve a Federal bureaucrat at HCFA, and it doesn't involve an HMO or an insurance company. It involves the patient who holds that medical savings account and his or her doctor. That is what this issue is all about. You darned well bet it is important that our Congress express to the American people that we should make medical savings accounts increasingly available. I am pleased to hear the chairman of the Finance Committee speak about addressing that this year because this year it expires. We should not allow that to happen. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I believe that we have the opportunity to express the will of the Senate. The Congress has moved slowly but grudgingly toward medical savings accounts and has created flexibility. We have a good opportunity to do so this year. Today, we have an opportunity to express our will to do that once again. I hope we will do so. I yield the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. I am sorry for this delay.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there was an agreement that the Santorum amendment would proceed and I would follow. We agreed we would switch those. I think that is the current agreement that has been accepted. I see the Senator from Montana is on the floor, the chairman of the Finance Committee, so with that, I send my amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I had planned up until an hour ago to offer a detailed amendment on medical savings accounts that I think fits appropriately into any discussion about patient's rights in this country. The first and foremost right is access to health care, relatively unfettered access to health care. The problem with that under the current scenario on the floor is it would bring about a point of order and I do not want this issue to fall based on that. Certainly it is appropriate we are here and we are taking the necessary and adequate time to debate patient's rights in American health care. I am proud of my party. Republicans have a solid record on protecting patients and their rights. We have fought for patients' rights from the very day we defeated the Clinton health care plan a good number of years ago, which was a massive effort to use government to take over our health care system, which would have largely let bureaucrats decide whether your family would get the medical care they need. It was a Republican Congress that stood up for patients' rights by creating medical savings accounts for the first time. Medical savings accounts, in my opinion, are the ultimate in patient protection for they throw the lawyers, employers, and bureaucrats out of the examining room and leave decisions about your health between you and your doctor. What has been most fascinating under the current medical savings account scenario in our country is that we have limited them to about 750,000 policies. Yet, a good many people have come to use them even though we have made it relatively restrictive and we have not opened it up to the full marketplace. What is most fascinating about the use of medical savings accounts is the category that all Members want to touch. We hear it spoken of quite often. That is the large number in our country of uninsured. Since we offered up a few years ago this pilot program, 37 percent of those who chose to use it were the uninsured of America. In other words, it became one of the most attractive items to them because it offered them at a lower cost full access to the health care system. It proves something many colleagues do not want proved: That given the opportunity, Americans can afford to health coverage if the price is right and the strings are not attached and they can, in fact, become the directors of their own health care destiny. I think it is fascinating when you look at this chart. Under the current scenario, of over 100,000 MSA buyers, one-third were previously uninsured. With medical savings accounts, you choose your own doctor. Also, if you believe you need a specialist, you have direct access to a specialist. You don't need an HMO or an insurance company working with or telling your doctor what you may or may not do. Of course, the debate for the last week has been all about that, all about the right of a patient to make the greater determination over his or her destiny and to have that one-on-one relationship with the health care provider. There is no question that if you are independent in your ability to insure or you have worked a relationship with your employer so you are independent through a medical savings account, then you can gain direct access to an OB/GYN. If your child is ill, you have direct access to a family pediatrician. With MSAs there are no gatekeepers; you are the gatekeeper. There are no mandatory referrals; you are the one who makes the decision, you and your doctor. The only people involved in your personal decisions, once again: Your family, you, and the medical professional you have chosen or to whom your doctor has referred you. That is the phenomenally great independence to which we are arbitrarily deciding Americans cannot have free access. I hoped to offer a much broader amendment, but I knew it would have to face that tough test of dealing with the Senate rules and all of that because it would deal with taxes and it would deal with revenue. As a result, instead of making the changes in the law that ought to be made because even the program I am talking about that has been so accepted expires this year and it is the responsibility of this Congress to expand it and make it available, here instead we are still talking about the rights of lawyers, not the rights of the patient. The rights of the patient are optimized if you provide the full marketplace access to medical savings accounts. Since we introduced the limited pilot program, wonderful things have happened. The very people we were trying to reach, the uninsured, are able to afford health coverage. And, in our society today, many of the uninsured are the children of working men and women who can't afford to add them as an extra beneficiary to their health care coverage because of the costs. Yet they found they were able to do that when their employer that allowed them to have a medical savings account. Medical savings accounts combine low-cost insurance, and a tax- preferred savings account for routine medical expenses. The catastrophic insurance policy covers higher cost items beyond what the savings account covers. That is why I think it is important that this Senate now express its will and its desire to continue to support medical savings accounts. That is why it appropriately fits inside the broad discussion of a Patients' Bill of Rights. I do not question any Senator's motive on the floor. Republican and Democrat alike want to make sure all Americans have access to health care. We want a Patients' Bill of Rights that works. We have had a President say very clearly, unless you can provide us with a Patients' Bill of Rights that creates stability, that allows the kind of flexibility we need to assure that employers can continue to provide health care without the risk of being dragged into court because of a health care program that they may be a sponsor of, then he will veto it. But here is a President who also supports maximizing choices in the marketplace. How you maximize choices in the marketplace for the patient today is to allow open access to a medical savings account program that optimizes all the flexibility we have talked about. You reach out and bring in the uninsured of America and allow them to develop the one-on-one relationship with their doctor that has historically been the standard of health care in our country. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire of the majority leader, is it your intent to at least shape the field of amendments into a set number but there is no time tied to those? Is that correct?

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the hour is late, but the Kyl amendment is important. There is no sham here at all. It is the marketplace at work--voluntarily to provide the employee with options. The employer must provide health care programs if they are going to provide health care programs that fit this bill, that fit the Patients' Bill of Rights, but in doing so they also can provide a voluntary option if the employee chooses to take it, which simply says you waive your rights to a lawsuit. And guess what. It might cost that employee less money. Yet he and she, and their families, might still be covered. Isn't that a reasonable option and a voluntary option to provide to the marketplace? How dare we say that every attorney ought to have a right here? Why not say every employee has a right to a marketplace of options that this voluntary approach that the Senator from Arizona provides gives to the health care system of our country? I support the amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Grassland Reserve Act'', a bill to authorize a voluntary program to purchase permanent or 30 year easement from willing producers in exchange for protection of ranches, grasslands, and lands of high resource value. I am pleased that Senators Feingold, and Thomas, have joined as original cosponsors. Grasslands provided critical habitat for complex plant and animal communities throughout much of North America. However, many of these lands have been, and are under pressure to be, converted to other uses, threatening and eliminating plant and animal communities unique to this continent. A significant portion of the remaining grasslands occur on working ranches. Ranchland provides important open-space buffers for animal and plant habitat. Moreover, ranching forms the economic backbone for much of rural western United States. Loss of this economic activity will invariably lead to the loss of the open space that is indispensable for plant and animal communities and for citizens who love the western style of life. As a rancher from a rural community in Idaho, I have noticed the changes taking place in some parts of my State where, for a number of reasons, working ranchers have been sold into ranchetts leaving the landscape divided by fences and homes where cattle and wildlife once roamed. Currently, no Federal programs exist to conserve grasslands, ranches, and other lands of high resource values, other than wetlands, on a national scale. I believe the United States needs a voluntary program to conserve these lands, and the Grasslands Reserve Act does just that. Specifically, this bill establishes the Grasslands Reserve program through the Natural Resources Conservation Service to assist owners in restoring and conserving eligible land. To be eligible to participate in the program an owner must enroll 100 contiguous acres of land west of the 90th meridian or 50 contiguous acres of land east of the 90th meridian. A maximum of 1,000,000 acres may be enrolled in the program in the form of a permanent or a 30-year easement. Land eligible for the program includes: native grasslands, working ranches, other areas that contain animal or plant populations of significant ecological value, and land that is necessary for the efficient administration of the easement. The terms of the easements allow for grazing in a manner consistent with maintaining the viability of native grass species. All uses other than grazing, such as hay production, may be implemented according to the terms of a written agreement between the landowner and easement holder. Easements prohibit the production of row crops, and other activities that disturb the surface of the land covered by the easement. The Secretary will work with the State technical committees to establish criteria to evaluate and rank applications for easements which will emphasize support for grazing operations, plant and animal biodiversity, and native grass and shrubland under the greatest threat of conversion. The Secretary may prescribe terms to the easement outlining how the land shall be restored including duties of the land owner and the Secretary. If the easement is violated, the Secretary may require the owner to refund all or part of the payments including interest. The Secretary may also conduct periodic inspections, after providing notice to the owner, to determine that the landowner is in compliance with the terms of the easement. The easement may be held and enforced by a private conservation, land trust organization, or a State agency in lieu of the Secretary, if the Secretary determines that granting such permission will promote grassland protection and the landowner agrees. This legislation requires the Secretary to make payments for permanent easements based on the fair market value of the land less the grazing value of the land encumbered by the easement, and for 30 year easements the payment will be 30 percent of the fair market value of the land less the grazing value of the land encumbered by the easement. Payments may be made in one lump sum or over a 10 year period. Landowners may also choose to enroll their land in a 30-year rental agreement instead of a 30-year easement where the Secretary would make thirty annual payments which approximate the value of a lump sum payment the owner would receive under a 30-year easement. The Secretary is required to assess the payment schedule every five years to make sure that the payments do approximate the value of a 30-year easement. USDA is also required to cover up to 75 percent of the cost of restoration and provide owners with technical assistance to execute the easement and restore the land. I believe this legislation fills a need we have in our agriculture policy and I look forward to working with other members to include the Grasslands Reserve program in a responsible and balanced farm bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Grassland Reserve Act'', a bill to authorize a voluntary program to purchase permanent or 30 year easement from willing producers in exchange for protection of ranches, grasslands, and lands of high resource value. I am pleased that Senators Feingold, and Thomas, have joined as original cosponsors. Grasslands provided critical habitat for complex plant and animal communities throughout much of North America. However, many of these lands have been, and are under pressure to be, converted to other uses, threatening and eliminating plant and animal communities unique to this continent. A significant portion of the remaining grasslands occur on working ranches. Ranchland provides important open-space buffers for animal and plant habitat. Moreover, ranching forms the economic backbone for much of rural western United States. Loss of this economic activity will invariably lead to the loss of the open space that is indispensable for plant and animal communities and for citizens who love the western style of life. As a rancher from a rural community in Idaho, I have noticed the changes taking place in some parts of my State where, for a number of reasons, working ranchers have been sold into ranchetts leaving the landscape divided by fences and homes where cattle and wildlife once roamed. Currently, no Federal programs exist to conserve grasslands, ranches, and other lands of high resource values, other than wetlands, on a national scale. I believe the United States needs a voluntary program to conserve these lands, and the Grasslands Reserve Act does just that. Specifically, this bill establishes the Grasslands Reserve program through the Natural Resources Conservation Service to assist owners in restoring and conserving eligible land. To be eligible to participate in the program an owner must enroll 100 contiguous acres of land west of the 90th meridian or 50 contiguous acres of land east of the 90th meridian. A maximum of 1,000,000 acres may be enrolled in the program in the form of a permanent or a 30-year easement. Land eligible for the program includes: native grasslands, working ranches, other areas that contain animal or plant populations of significant ecological value, and land that is necessary for the efficient administration of the easement. The terms of the easements allow for grazing in a manner consistent with maintaining the viability of native grass species. All uses other than grazing, such as hay production, may be implemented according to the terms of a written agreement between the landowner and easement holder. Easements prohibit the production of row crops, and other activities that disturb the surface of the land covered by the easement. The Secretary will work with the State technical committees to establish criteria to evaluate and rank applications for easements which will emphasize support for grazing operations, plant and animal biodiversity, and native grass and shrubland under the greatest threat of conversion. The Secretary may prescribe terms to the easement outlining how the land shall be restored including duties of the land owner and the Secretary. If the easement is violated, the Secretary may require the owner to refund all or part of the payments including interest. The Secretary may also conduct periodic inspections, after providing notice to the owner, to determine that the landowner is in compliance with the terms of the easement. The easement may be held and enforced by a private conservation, land trust organization, or a State agency in lieu of the Secretary, if the Secretary determines that granting such permission will promote grassland protection and the landowner agrees. This legislation requires the Secretary to make payments for permanent easements based on the fair market value of the land less the grazing value of the land encumbered by the easement, and for 30 year easements the payment will be 30 percent of the fair market value of the land less the grazing value of the land encumbered by the easement. Payments may be made in one lump sum or over a 10 year period. Landowners may also choose to enroll their land in a 30-year rental agreement instead of a 30-year easement where the Secretary would make thirty annual payments which approximate the value of a lump sum payment the owner would receive under a 30-year easement. The Secretary is required to assess the payment schedule every five years to make sure that the payments do approximate the value of a 30-year easement. USDA is also required to cover up to 75 percent of the cost of restoration and provide owners with technical assistance to execute the easement and restore the land. I believe this legislation fills a need we have in our agriculture policy and I look forward to working with other members to include the Grasslands Reserve program in a responsible and balanced farm bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill of great significance to our energy future, the Fusion Energy Sciences Act of 2001. I am especially pleased that my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, is joining me as the primary cosponsor of this legislation. This bill is designed to strengthen the fusion program at the Department of Energy and to accelerate planning for the next major step in fusion energy science development. In recent months, the news has been dominated by energy concerns. Although there may be differences of opinion about the causes of our current energy problems and what the appropriate solutions might be, there is general agreement that energy forms a vital link to our economic prosperity and provides the means by which the conduct of our daily lives is made easier and more comfortable. While we grapple with short term remedies, we need to stay focused on long term investment in those endeavors which have the potential to help secure our energy future. I believe that fusion energy has this potential. Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and the stars. At its most basic, it is the combining or fusion of two small atoms into a larger atom. When two atomic nuclei fuse, tremendous amounts of energy are released. If we can achieve this joining of atoms, and successfully contain and harness the energy produced, fusion will be close to an ideal energy source. It produces no air pollutants because the byproduct of the reaction is helium, it is safe and its fuel source, hydrogen, is practically unlimited and easily obtained. In the technical community, the debate over the scientific feasibility of fusion energy is now over. During the past decade, substantial amounts of fusion energy have been created in the laboratory setting. I am proud to note that some of this underlying scientific work has been conducted at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in my State, which has been selected by the Department of Energy to lead efforts on fusion safety. Although certain scientific questions remain, the primary outstanding issue about fusion energy at this point is whether fusion energy can make the challenging step from the laboratory into a practical energy resource. Achieving this goal will require high quality science, innovative research and international collaboration, and the resources to make this possible. That is the goal to which this legislation is directed. According to the scientific experts, the path to practical fusion will involve three steps. First, there is a need to conduct a ``burning plasma'' experiment. Second, this effort would be further developed in an engineering test facility. The third step would be a demonstration plant. If taken in series, each of these steps would take approximately fifteen years, but through international collaboration, it may be possible to accelerate this process. In addition to these steps, continued investment in a strong underlying program of fusion science and plasma physics will still be necessary. Therefore, this bill instructs the Secretary of Energy to transmit to the Congress by July 1, 2004 a plan for a ``burning plasma'' experiment, which is the next necessary step towards the eventual realization of practical fusion energy. At a minimum, the Secretary must submit a plan for a domestic U.S. experiment, but may also submit a plan for U.S. involvement in an international burning plasma experiment if such involvement is cost effective and has equivalent scientific benefits to a domestic experiment. The bill also requires that within six months of the enactment, the Secretary of Energy shall submit a plan to Congress to ensure a strong scientific base for the fusion energy sciences program. Finally, for ongoing activities in the Department of Energy's fusion energy sciences program and for the purpose of preparing the plans called for, the bill authorizes $320,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $335,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. As we suffer through near term challenges in the energy sector and meeting our immediate needs, it is more crucial than ever that we invest in those items that hold the promise for long term solutions. Recent accomplishments in the laboratory demonstrate that fusion energy has this long term potential. The Fusion Energy Sciences Act of 2001 will bring this promise closer to reality for future generations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill of great significance to our energy future, the Fusion Energy Sciences Act of 2001. I am especially pleased that my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, is joining me as the primary cosponsor of this legislation. This bill is designed to strengthen the fusion program at the Department of Energy and to accelerate planning for the next major step in fusion energy science development. In recent months, the news has been dominated by energy concerns. Although there may be differences of opinion about the causes of our current energy problems and what the appropriate solutions might be, there is general agreement that energy forms a vital link to our economic prosperity and provides the means by which the conduct of our daily lives is made easier and more comfortable. While we grapple with short term remedies, we need to stay focused on long term investment in those endeavors which have the potential to help secure our energy future. I believe that fusion energy has this potential. Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and the stars. At its most basic, it is the combining or fusion of two small atoms into a larger atom. When two atomic nuclei fuse, tremendous amounts of energy are released. If we can achieve this joining of atoms, and successfully contain and harness the energy produced, fusion will be close to an ideal energy source. It produces no air pollutants because the byproduct of the reaction is helium, it is safe and its fuel source, hydrogen, is practically unlimited and easily obtained. In the technical community, the debate over the scientific feasibility of fusion energy is now over. During the past decade, substantial amounts of fusion energy have been created in the laboratory setting. I am proud to note that some of this underlying scientific work has been conducted at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in my State, which has been selected by the Department of Energy to lead efforts on fusion safety. Although certain scientific questions remain, the primary outstanding issue about fusion energy at this point is whether fusion energy can make the challenging step from the laboratory into a practical energy resource. Achieving this goal will require high quality science, innovative research and international collaboration, and the resources to make this possible. That is the goal to which this legislation is directed. According to the scientific experts, the path to practical fusion will involve three steps. First, there is a need to conduct a ``burning plasma'' experiment. Second, this effort would be further developed in an engineering test facility. The third step would be a demonstration plant. If taken in series, each of these steps would take approximately fifteen years, but through international collaboration, it may be possible to accelerate this process. In addition to these steps, continued investment in a strong underlying program of fusion science and plasma physics will still be necessary. Therefore, this bill instructs the Secretary of Energy to transmit to the Congress by July 1, 2004 a plan for a ``burning plasma'' experiment, which is the next necessary step towards the eventual realization of practical fusion energy. At a minimum, the Secretary must submit a plan for a domestic U.S. experiment, but may also submit a plan for U.S. involvement in an international burning plasma experiment if such involvement is cost effective and has equivalent scientific benefits to a domestic experiment. The bill also requires that within six months of the enactment, the Secretary of Energy shall submit a plan to Congress to ensure a strong scientific base for the fusion energy sciences program. Finally, for ongoing activities in the Department of Energy's fusion energy sciences program and for the purpose of preparing the plans called for, the bill authorizes $320,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and $335,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. As we suffer through near term challenges in the energy sector and meeting our immediate needs, it is more crucial than ever that we invest in those items that hold the promise for long term solutions. Recent accomplishments in the laboratory demonstrate that fusion energy has this long term potential. The Fusion Energy Sciences Act of 2001 will bring this promise closer to reality for future generations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Conrad to introduce the National Rural Development Partnership Act of 2001--a bill to codify the National Rural Development Partnership, NRDP or the Partnership, and provided a funding source for the program, I am pleased that Senators Allard, Baucus, Bingaman, Burns, Collins, Crapo, Daschle, Dayton, Dorgan, Enzi, Gramm, Grassley, Hagel, Helms, Hutchison, Jeffords, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Lugar, Mikulski, Murray, Ben Nelson, Reed, Roberts, Sarbanes, Bob Smith, Gordon Smith, Thomas, and Wellstone are joining us as original cosponsors. The Partnership was established under the Bush administration in 1990, by Executive Order 12720. Although the partnership has existed for ten years, it has never been formally authorized by Congress. The current basis for the existence of the partnership is found in the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 and the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980. In addition, the conference committee report on the 1996 federal farm bill created specific responsibilities and expectations for the partnership and State rural development councils, SRDCs. The partnership is a nonpartisan interagency working group whose mission is to ``contribute to the vitality of the Nation by strengthening the ability of all rural Americans to participate in determining their futures.'' The NRDP and SRDCs do something no other entities do: facilitate collaboration among federal agencies and between Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments and the private and non-profit sectors to increase coordination of programs and services to rural areas. When successful, these efforts result in more efficient use of limited rural development resources and actually add value to the efforts and dollars of others. On March 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, which I chaired, held an oversight hearing on the operations and accomplishments of the NRDP and SRDCs. The subcommittee heard from a number of witnesses, including officials of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, and Health and Human Services, State agencies, and private sector representatives. The hearing established the need for some legislative foundation and consistent funding. The legislation we introduced last year and are reintroducing this Congress accomplishes just that. This legislation formally recognizes the existence and operations of the partnership, the National Rural Development Coordinating Committee, NRDCC, and SRDCs. In addition, the legislation gives specific responsibilities to each component of the Partnership and authorizes it to receive congressional appropriations. Specifically, the bill formally establishes the NRDP and indicates it is composed of the NRDCC and SRDCs. NRDP is established for empowering and building the capacity of rural communities, encouraging participation in flexible and innovative methods of addressing the challenges of rural areas, and encouraging all those involved in the partnership to be fully engaged and to share equally in decisionmaking. This legislation also identifies the role of the Federal Government in the partnership as being that of partner, coach, and facilitator. Federal agencies are called upon to designate senior-level officials to participate in the NRDCC and to encourage field staff to participate in SRDCs. Federal agencies are also authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with, and to provide grants and other assistance to, State rural development councils, regardless of the form of legal organization of a State rural development council. The composition of the NRDCC is specified as being one representative from each Federal agency with rural responsibilities, and governmental and non-governmental for-profit and non-profit organizations that elect to participate in the NRDCC. The legislation outlines the duties of the council as being to provide support to SRDCs; facilitate coordination among Federal agencies and between the Federal, State, local and tribal governments and private organizations; enhance the effectiveness, responsiveness, and delivery of Federal Government programs; gather and provide to Federal agencies information about the impact of government programs on rural areas; review and comment on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation; provide technical assistance to SRDCs; and develop strategies for eliminating administrative and regulatory impediments. Federal agencies do have the ability to opt out of participation in the council, but only if they can show how they can more effectively serve rural areas without participating in the partnership and council. This legislation provides that states may participate in the partnership by entering into a memorandum of understanding with USDA to establish an SRDC. SRDCs are required to operate in a nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory manner and to reflect the diversity of the States within which they are organized. The duties of the SRDCs are to facilitate collaboration among government agencies at all levels and the private and non-profit sectors; to enhance the effectiveness, responsiveness, and delivery of Federal and State Government programs; to gather information about rural areas in its State and share it with the NRDCC and other entities; to monitor and report on policies and programs that address, or fail to address, the needs of rural areas; to facilitate the formulation of needs assessments for rural areas and participate in the development of the criteria for the distribution of Federal funds to rural areas; to provide comments to the NRDCC and others on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation; assist the NRDCC in developing strategies for reducing or eliminating impediments; to hire an executive director and support staff; and to fundraise. As I have stated before, this legislation authorizes the partnership to receive appropriations as well as authorizing and encouraging federal agencies to make grants and provide other forms of assistance to the partnership and authorizing the partnership to accept private contributions. The SRDCs are required to provide at least a 33-percent match for funds it receives as a result of its cooperative agreement with the Federal Government. As you know, too many parts of rural America have not shared in the boom that has brought great prosperity to urban America. We need to do more to ensure that rural citizens will have opportunities similar to those enjoyed by urban areas. To do so, we do not necessarily need new government programs. Instead, we must do a better job of coordinating the many programs available from USDA and other Federal agencies that can benefit rural communities. With the passage of this legislation, the NRDP and SRDCs will be better situated to provide that much needed coordination.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Conrad to introduce the National Rural Development Partnership Act of 2001--a bill to codify the National Rural Development Partnership, NRDP or the Partnership, and provided a funding source for the program, I am pleased that Senators Allard, Baucus, Bingaman, Burns, Collins, Crapo, Daschle, Dayton, Dorgan, Enzi, Gramm, Grassley, Hagel, Helms, Hutchison, Jeffords, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Lugar, Mikulski, Murray, Ben Nelson, Reed, Roberts, Sarbanes, Bob Smith, Gordon Smith, Thomas, and Wellstone are joining us as original cosponsors. The Partnership was established under the Bush administration in 1990, by Executive Order 12720. Although the partnership has existed for ten years, it has never been formally authorized by Congress. The current basis for the existence of the partnership is found in the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 and the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980. In addition, the conference committee report on the 1996 federal farm bill created specific responsibilities and expectations for the partnership and State rural development councils, SRDCs. The partnership is a nonpartisan interagency working group whose mission is to ``contribute to the vitality of the Nation by strengthening the ability of all rural Americans to participate in determining their futures.'' The NRDP and SRDCs do something no other entities do: facilitate collaboration among federal agencies and between Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments and the private and non-profit sectors to increase coordination of programs and services to rural areas. When successful, these efforts result in more efficient use of limited rural development resources and actually add value to the efforts and dollars of others. On March 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, which I chaired, held an oversight hearing on the operations and accomplishments of the NRDP and SRDCs. The subcommittee heard from a number of witnesses, including officials of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, and Health and Human Services, State agencies, and private sector representatives. The hearing established the need for some legislative foundation and consistent funding. The legislation we introduced last year and are reintroducing this Congress accomplishes just that. This legislation formally recognizes the existence and operations of the partnership, the National Rural Development Coordinating Committee, NRDCC, and SRDCs. In addition, the legislation gives specific responsibilities to each component of the Partnership and authorizes it to receive congressional appropriations. Specifically, the bill formally establishes the NRDP and indicates it is composed of the NRDCC and SRDCs. NRDP is established for empowering and building the capacity of rural communities, encouraging participation in flexible and innovative methods of addressing the challenges of rural areas, and encouraging all those involved in the partnership to be fully engaged and to share equally in decisionmaking. This legislation also identifies the role of the Federal Government in the partnership as being that of partner, coach, and facilitator. Federal agencies are called upon to designate senior-level officials to participate in the NRDCC and to encourage field staff to participate in SRDCs. Federal agencies are also authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with, and to provide grants and other assistance to, State rural development councils, regardless of the form of legal organization of a State rural development council. The composition of the NRDCC is specified as being one representative from each Federal agency with rural responsibilities, and governmental and non-governmental for-profit and non-profit organizations that elect to participate in the NRDCC. The legislation outlines the duties of the council as being to provide support to SRDCs; facilitate coordination among Federal agencies and between the Federal, State, local and tribal governments and private organizations; enhance the effectiveness, responsiveness, and delivery of Federal Government programs; gather and provide to Federal agencies information about the impact of government programs on rural areas; review and comment on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation; provide technical assistance to SRDCs; and develop strategies for eliminating administrative and regulatory impediments. Federal agencies do have the ability to opt out of participation in the council, but only if they can show how they can more effectively serve rural areas without participating in the partnership and council. This legislation provides that states may participate in the partnership by entering into a memorandum of understanding with USDA to establish an SRDC. SRDCs are required to operate in a nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory manner and to reflect the diversity of the States within which they are organized. The duties of the SRDCs are to facilitate collaboration among government agencies at all levels and the private and non-profit sectors; to enhance the effectiveness, responsiveness, and delivery of Federal and State Government programs; to gather information about rural areas in its State and share it with the NRDCC and other entities; to monitor and report on policies and programs that address, or fail to address, the needs of rural areas; to facilitate the formulation of needs assessments for rural areas and participate in the development of the criteria for the distribution of Federal funds to rural areas; to provide comments to the NRDCC and others on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation; assist the NRDCC in developing strategies for reducing or eliminating impediments; to hire an executive director and support staff; and to fundraise. As I have stated before, this legislation authorizes the partnership to receive appropriations as well as authorizing and encouraging federal agencies to make grants and provide other forms of assistance to the partnership and authorizing the partnership to accept private contributions. The SRDCs are required to provide at least a 33-percent match for funds it receives as a result of its cooperative agreement with the Federal Government. As you know, too many parts of rural America have not shared in the boom that has brought great prosperity to urban America. We need to do more to ensure that rural citizens will have opportunities similar to those enjoyed by urban areas. To do so, we do not necessarily need new government programs. Instead, we must do a better job of coordinating the many programs available from USDA and other Federal agencies that can benefit rural communities. With the passage of this legislation, the NRDP and SRDCs will be better situated to provide that much needed coordination.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference Report for H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. I commend the leadership and hard work of the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, as well as the many colleagues who have actively helped shape this bill. This bill is a true accomplishment, and a truly bipartisan one at that. As an adoptive parent, myself, I especially want to comment on one section: Section 202, for the extension, expansion, and improvement of the adoption tax credit and adoption assistance programs. I am happy to note that this section is virtually identical to the Senate floor amendment proposed by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, and myself. This is a perfect example of a bipartisan effort that will accomplish much good for so many people in need. The adoption provisions include the following: Extending the regular adoption tax credit, and the exclusion from income for adoption assistance programs, making them permanent, like the currently-permanent special needs adoption tax credit; Increasing both the tax credit and the income exclusion to $10,000; For families adopting special needs children, de-linking the special needs credit from cumbersome and inflexible IRS regulations that currently exclude a wide range of legitimate adoption expenses related to these children; Protecting the benefit of the adoption tax credit by allowing the credit against the alternative minimum tax, permanently; and Making both the adoption credit and exclusion for assistance available to more families--and more children needing adoption--by lifting the cap on income eligibility to $150,000. It is not possible to overstate the importance of these provision to the many families and many children who have hoped to build an adoptive family, but have found so many barriers to doing so. In agreeing to include these provisions in this conference report, the Congress has taken a giant pro-adoption and pro-family step forward. More children will have loving and permanent homes. I thank my colleagues for that. Overall, this bill signals a great day in America. The Congress has delivered the tax relief the American people voted for when they put George Bush in the White House, and elected this Congress. There has never been a more important time to reduce the tax burden-- right now Americans are more heavily taxed than at any time in history and pay more in taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined. This tax relief agreed upon today is a quality example of how Republicans and Democrats can work together to get the job done for the American taxpayer. This bill means relief for every American who pays taxes. Compared with their current tax burdens, this bill provides the most relief to modest--and middle-income families. It is good for small businesses and jobs, and it will help jump-start the economy at a critical time. This bill means hardworking Americans and their families will have a little more freedom, and the Federal Government a little less control over their lives. I commend my colleagues for passing this bill, and I applaud our President for having the vision and tenacity to initiate this tax relief and see it through to becoming law.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Dry Pea, Lentil, and Chickpea Marketing Assistance Loan Act,'' a bill to authorize a marketing loan program and loan deficiency payments, or LDPs, for pulse crops which include peas, lentils, and chickpeas. I am pleased that Senators Burns, Baucus, Cantwell, Conrad, Crapo, Daschle, Dorgan, Johnson and Murray have joined as original cosponsors. Pulses are grown across the northern tier of the United States. Traditionally pulses have been grown as a rotation crop that provides benefit to the soil, by fixing nitrogen, breaking weed and disease cycles, and reducing the need for field burning. Dryland farmers in northern Idaho for years have rotated wheat, canola, and dry peas, lentils or chickpeas. As prices have dropped for all commodities, including pulses, we have seen a shift in production patterns which have decreased the production of dry peas and lentils. Current wheat prices are no better than dry pea prices, pound for pound, but a banker will lend money to a grower of wheat and oilseeds because there is a loan program and LDP. The depressed markets have forced dryland farmers across the northen tier of the United States to abandon pulses in favor of traditional farm program crops like wheat, oilseeds, and barley. This bill attempts to remedy this situation by creating a loan rate for dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas with support equivalent to the loan programs for spring wheat and canola. The bill mirrors existing statutory authority for the loan programs established for other crops by creating floor prices based from 85 percent of a five-year Olympic average. The approximate cost of the bill, and benefits to pulse growers, would be about $8.5 million annually. When we passed the last farm bill, the goal was to have farmers farm the land and not the programs. As prices have dropped, we are again seeing planting decisions made based on the programs available, which has made pulse crops less attractive in a rotation. As we begin the process of reauthorizing the farm bill, we will work to make sure that pulses are included so that farmers will be competitive with other crops grown in the area.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from the State of Wyoming for yielding to me, and I thank him for his leadership on all of these many issues that he has discussed. He comes from a fascinating State, a State with a basket full of potential energy for this Nation if we can change a few of our policies and allow Wyoming, Montana, and other such States to be able to use the abundance of their coal to produce electricity at the mouth of the mine itself, and then through transmission lines to transport it across the Western States and to the State of California, where they are so desperately in need of more energy. I say that in my opening comments because we are on the threshold of beginning to work on a national energy policy. The President has presented one. The Senate has produced a bill. The Energy Committee, on which I serve, will now begin to review all aspects of that proposed policy and begin to shape for our Nation new public laws, amended public laws, a new regulatory process, a reduced regulatory process that will allow this country, once again, after nearly a decade, to get back in the business of producing energy. Senator Thomas and I were downtown yesterday speaking to a group, and I, at that time, said we are a rich Nation. Compared with all other nations of the world, we are one of the most wealthy. It is because of a combination of assets that we have had and have uniquely combined in the American character. First of all is the free enterprise system where an individual is allowed to create at his or her level and with his or her talent, and to use that creation not only to create wealth for themselves but for everyone around them. That is probably the No. 1 resource in our country and always has been. But tied to that resource is an abundance of energy in almost all forms--electrical, hydrocarbon, you name it. We have never wanted for energy in our country. But today we do. The American public is paying a higher price for gas than at any time in our Nation's history. They are paying higher electrical rates than at any time in our Nation's history, and they are asking a fundamental question: Why? Why are we? Why do we have to? Of course, we already know that those higher costs have depleted or reduced the wealth-generating capability of our country. It has cost thousands of jobs. It has hurt households. Every day, the commuter to his or her job is paying nearly double in the commuter costs than a year ago. This country cries out for a new energy policy of production. But they also want to see it done in a clean and responsible way when it comes to the environment. All of those things can be accomplished if this Senate will put its mind to it to assuring that we make that happen, and that we partner with States and local governments to assure they are fully involved and engaged with us in this most important process. A lot of people are saying right now: Well, George Bush, why aren't you helping out in California? After about 20 decisions coming out of the new administration, 3 decisions coming out of the FERC, at some point we have to do the very common and necessary thing and say to California: Help yourself. California, finally, is beginning to do that. They are beginning to recognize that after 10 long years of not producing any energy, they are going to have to produce some. They used to buy a lot of energy from Idaho. We used to ship a lot of energy down there. But we Idahoans now need our energy because we are growing. We also had a drought in the Western States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. We used to produce most of our power by turbines and dams and hydro power. As a result, this year we have less capability to produce and therefore we have less power to sell to California. Those are some of the critically important dynamics of the policy we will have to develop in the Senate. I have already had some of my folks calling me from Idaho saying, with what happened yesterday and with Democrats taking control of the Senate, is the energy policy dead? No, I don't think it will be. It can't be. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot be viewed as obstructionists who are advocates of $2 or $3 gasoline or $400 or $500 megawatt power. They aren't now, and they can't be later. They must work with us and the Bush administration to get this country back into the business of producing and conserving and balancing out our electrical needs. President Bush said: Give me a tax cut now and give me some immediate response so at least in the short term a consuming family will have just a little bit of relief in their energy bill or any other part of family expenses. That is what we are struggling with at this very moment. The House and the Senate are meeting in conference to work out the differences between what we have produced in the Senate and what our colleagues in the House have produced. I hope in the end it will look very closely like what our President is asking--to return some of their tax dollars to them in the form of tax relief, both in the short term and in the long term, to stimulate the economy and to allow the producer to keep more of his or her hard-earned cash. In the midst of all of that, for just a little bit of time, maybe they can afford to pay just a little more for energy. I wish they didn't. I wish we had been smart enough 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 4 years ago, to shift the policy. But we had an administration that said all you have to do is conserve and maybe use a little gas--that is, natural gas--to generate electricity, and we will get through all of this. We know that didn't work very well. Conservation was an important part of that energy message, and it is today. The average consumer today is now making a choice. I heard on the television a couple of mornings ago that the American Automobile Association says consumers are going to travel less this summer. Instead of a 10-day trip in their automobile, they are going to take an 8-day trip or a 7-day trip. That is the American consumer doing what they do best--evaluating the cost of the trip and what they have in their pocketbooks and what their family can afford and stepping back. It is OK to do that in the short term, but when it comes to industry and the creation of jobs and the fact that industry may have to produce less and step back because of the input cost of energy, that then begins to hurt the whole economy of our country. So how can I talk about tax relief and energy in the same conversation? They are, in fact, integrally related. The ability to create a job, the ability to earn a paycheck, and to have a fair amount of that which you can apply to yourself, your family, and your kids' education has, in part, always been in direct relation to the amount it takes you to live; and the cost of living has gone up substantially in the last 2 years because of the fundamental cost of energy. All of these issues are tremendously important. Thank goodness we now have a President who speaks boldly, clearly, and bluntly about these kinds of issues. He says we are in an energy crisis and we can get out of it if we simply produce and get back to the business of providing for the consumer of this country. He has laid out a plan on how to do it. On most of it, I agree. I certainly hope this Senate in future days, and under its new leadership, will recognize the importance of such a policy to the American people. You simply cannot deny it any longer. If conservation is the only message out there, then look at California, the greatest conserving State in the Nation. They have conserved themselves right into darkness. That is no way to run a State. They now know they have to produce along with that conservation, and we ought to allow this great country of ours that opportunity. I have always been one who believed that the freer our citizens, the freer our economy, the more flexibility to do what we do best--generate this great country's wealth and, therefore, this great country's world presence. Wealthy nations can provide for their people, and we do. Poor nations cannot. There is nothing wrong with the idea of creating wealth and allowing people to share it, allowing people to have the fruits of their labor and their genius. It is what has made us great, and it is what allows us to turn to those less fortunate here and around the world, to say we can help, and the only reason we can help is because we are, fortunately, a rich nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Dry Pea, Lentil, and Chickpea Marketing Assistance Loan Act,'' a bill to authorize a marketing loan program and loan deficiency payments, or LDPs, for pulse crops which include peas, lentils, and chickpeas. I am pleased that Senators Burns, Baucus, Cantwell, Conrad, Crapo, Daschle, Dorgan, Johnson and Murray have joined as original cosponsors. Pulses are grown across the northern tier of the United States. Traditionally pulses have been grown as a rotation crop that provides benefit to the soil, by fixing nitrogen, breaking weed and disease cycles, and reducing the need for field burning. Dryland farmers in northern Idaho for years have rotated wheat, canola, and dry peas, lentils or chickpeas. As prices have dropped for all commodities, including pulses, we have seen a shift in production patterns which have decreased the production of dry peas and lentils. Current wheat prices are no better than dry pea prices, pound for pound, but a banker will lend money to a grower of wheat and oilseeds because there is a loan program and LDP. The depressed markets have forced dryland farmers across the northen tier of the United States to abandon pulses in favor of traditional farm program crops like wheat, oilseeds, and barley. This bill attempts to remedy this situation by creating a loan rate for dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas with support equivalent to the loan programs for spring wheat and canola. The bill mirrors existing statutory authority for the loan programs established for other crops by creating floor prices based from 85 percent of a five-year Olympic average. The approximate cost of the bill, and benefits to pulse growers, would be about $8.5 million annually. When we passed the last farm bill, the goal was to have farmers farm the land and not the programs. As prices have dropped, we are again seeing planting decisions made based on the programs available, which has made pulse crops less attractive in a rotation. As we begin the process of reauthorizing the farm bill, we will work to make sure that pulses are included so that farmers will be competitive with other crops grown in the area.