Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO. Should we let Senator Ensign go right now?

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

Mr. CRAPO. Two or three minutes is all.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions under the Budget Act with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chambliss be added as a cosponsor of the Crapo amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank my committee chairman, Senator Dodd, of the Banking Committee for his comments. I appreciate our working relationship and the commitment he made on not only this issue but a number of issues of importance facing our financial institutions and the reform we need to deal with in Congress. I look forward to working with him on that matter. I also thank Senator Mikulski for her patience as we brought this issue up on her bill. I truly do appreciate her patience and her understanding. I understand what the procedure is going to be and what the votes are going to be in a few minutes. I recognize that. I do realize we have a procedural issue here, but we also have a very critical financial issue. As Senator Dodd has so well stated, this is an issue on which we have broad bipartisan agreement. I appreciate his commitment to work with us in an expeditious manner so that we can get this legislation put into law as soon as possible. There is an urgency. It is not an emergency yet and we have a little bit of time to deal with it, but there is an urgency. I appreciate Senator Dodd's recognition of that and his willingness to work with us on this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today we face very difficult economic threats in our financial industries. It is important that we consider the possibility that our regulatory authorities do not have sufficient authority necessary to deal with potential financial institution failures. As a result, this is not an acknowledgment that anything like that will happen, but there is certainly the threat and concern in our financial markets as to whether we need to have additional protective authorities. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation protects against the loss of insured deposits if a federally insured bank or savings institution fails. It is important to note, though, that depositors who have deposits at these institutions are protected by Federal guarantees, and these guarantees are, in the event of a bank failure, immediately protected by the FDIC. It is not the taxpayers but fees and assessments paid by the depository institutions themselves that cover the cost of this protection. However, the level of borrowing authority the FDIC has to provide this protection has not increased since 1991. At that time, the amount was set at $30 billion. The assets in the banking industry under protection have tripled since that time from $4.5 trillion to $13.6 trillion. Yet the borrowing authority of the FDIC has not been increased. This legislation does two significant things. It increases the borrowing authority of the FDIC from $30 billion to $100 billion, approximating the percentage increase of the assets under protection and the growth in the assets under protection since the original level was set in 1991. The bill also authorizes a temporary increase in borrowing authority from that $100 billion increased level up to but not to exceed $500 billion based on a process that would require the concurrence of the FDIC, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Treasury Department, in consultation with the President. The reason for this additional authority is because of the extreme difficulties we are facing in our economy now, and we need to ensure that the FDIC has the necessary capacity to deal with any such threats. This legislation is very important and urgent. The reason I bring it forth on this national service legislation is because we don't have time to wait to consider this legislation. It exists in a freestanding bill form on a bipartisan basis, with Republicans and Democrats in strong support of the legislation. I believe there is strong agreement throughout the financial industries that this kind of increased borrowing authority for the FDIC is helpful and an important piece of the solution to the problems we face today. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons it is urgent is not only because we need to be sure the FDIC is properly protected or in a position to properly protect depositors and financial institutions but also because in order to deal with this needed fund, the FDIC is currently considering significant increases in assessments to our Nation's banks. These increased assessments in many cases, in some of our smaller and midsize communities, are creating a terrific financial threat to the banks, which, in turn, then reduces the potential of these banks to engage in lending authority, the type of credit activity we want to see happening. So while Congress waits, we see credit being further restricted by the failure of Congress to take this action and free up the FDIC authority. Again, another one of the reasons I bring the amendment today is because this legislation, even though it is supported on a broad, bipartisan basis, is being caught up with other issues in the Senate that could delay its consideration and result in the imposition of significantly increased assessments on our Nation's banks. That is the cram-down legislation in terms of bankruptcy proposals that have been put forward. Everyone in this body and throughout Congress and the country recognizes that we are having a difficult time dealing with very controversial proposals about our bankruptcy laws which have become known as the cram-down provisions that may or may not gain support in this Senate for passage. I personally think it is unlikely that the cram-down legislation will ultimately gain sufficient support in the Senate to be passed, but regardless of whether that happens, it is a difficult, controversial issue. This legislation, which is not difficult and not controversial, is being slowed down by being tied with the bankruptcy cram-down provisions. Because of that, it is imperative that we move forward as expeditiously as possible, consider the amendment, and move forward with this piece of the important reforms necessary for us to properly address the credit crisis and the financial threats our Nation faces today. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor this morning and join with my colleague, Senator Grassley from Iowa, who is the ranking member of the Finance Committee. It is truly a pleasure to serve with him on that committee. He is one of those who, day in and day out, year in and year out, fights for fiscal responsibility at the Federal level. I appreciate his support and share in the comments he has made already today. I wish to start my remarks by talking about a meeting I had this morning in my office with a couple of mayors from two Idaho cities and a number of young students whom they brought with them from their respective cities to come to Washington, DC. These two mayors have established a mayor's council of students in their cities and work with these students on public issues and help these young people find an effective way to be active and involved. As they came to visit with me today, they brought up two issues. The first issue they brought up was the alarming rate of high school dropouts and the need for us to pay attention to our educational system. They talked with me about a number of interesting ideas we should pursue as we try to regain America's lead in excellence in education. I am going to have more to say about that on the floor and in other contexts on another day. But I thought it was very interesting; the second issue they brought up with me was directly relevant to the remarks I planned to make on the floor today; that is, they brought me a set of petitions--I am holding them in my hand right now--with the signatures of about 400 students in Idaho, whom I think properly reflect many, many, more than they, who have asked that we pay attention to our national debt and our inability--our inability in Congress--to achieve fiscal responsibility. These young people said what I and many others have been saying, only they said it best; that is, that our inability to control our fiscal house here in Washington, DC, is jeopardizing their future and it is jeopardizing their children's future and their children's future. Now, we often say that on the floor, but I had the opportunity today to meet with these young people who looked me in the eye and asked me to do everything I can to help protect them from what they see happening as a result of a runaway Congress and a runaway spending plan in this Congress that will specifically fall on their shoulders to bear. Well, they talked with me about things such as who owns our national debt. They pointed out, as most Americans are starting to realize, that foreign nations own most of our national debt, which raises additional threats to our security. Today, China and Japan are the primary holders of our national debt. As I think many Americans have noted recently, the Chinese are starting to wonder whether this investment in U.S. debt instruments is a viable investment because of the spending policies of our Nation. Well, I am here to talk about the budget that this Senate and this Congress are now beginning to consider. In addition to sitting on the Finance Committee, I sit on the Budget Committee. In the next few weeks, the Budget Committee is going to begin its deliberations on the budget the President has submitted to us. Every year, the President submits to Congress a budget. I do not think in any year I have served in Congress has the Congress actually adopted the exact budget the President has proposed. But the President's budget proposal acts as a guide from which the Congress then crafts its own budget. I believe this year Congress must be very careful in following the proposals or using as a model or a guide the budget which we have been given. As shown on this chart, the budget that has been proposed to us will increase taxes by approximately $1.4 trillion. This number is hard to get at because we do not have the details yet. The reason I say that is because many--including myself--believe that is a very low number in terms of the actual amount of the tax increases. I will explain that in a moment. It increases discretionary spending by $725 billion. These are 10- year numbers. As my colleague from Iowa said, the budgets project out over a 10-year cycle, and it increases mandatory spending by $1.2 trillion. If you look at the spending side of this for a minute--for those who do not pay attention to our discussion of different pieces of the budget here in Washington, mandatory spending generally is spending that previous Congresses and previous Presidents have already debated, passed into law, and signed into law and is ongoing. I call it spending that is on autopilot because this spending will happen regardless of whether Congress ever votes or meets again. It is law, and regardless of the status of the economy, regardless of the demographics of our Nation and what is happening in the world in which we are living today, the law requires this spending occur. It is what often we call entitlement spending--``entitlement'' because the law has created an entitlement, and if a person qualifies in a certain way, they are entitled to receive payment under the law. Now, the vast majority of this entitlement spending, as most people know, is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. There are other entitlement laws, mandatory spending laws, in the United States, but the vast majority--the vastly largest percentage--are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Also added into this category of mandatory spending is interest on the national debt because that also must be paid. So you can think of the mandatory spending or autopilot spending as basically this column here, as shown on the chart, that represents about two-thirds--roughly, about two-thirds--of all the spending in each year's average budget. The discretionary spending is everything else. That is what we actually vote on in Congress every year in our appropriations process. As I have said, it is roughly about a third of our budget. That spending can also be divided roughly in half. Approximately half of it is national defense and security spending; and approximately half of it is everything other than defense. So you often hear us talk about nondefense discretionary spending. That is what we are talking about: the things Congress actually votes on every year. Together, our discretionary spending and our mandatory spending are the spending side of our budget. As you can see on this chart, we are proposing in both categories dramatic increases over the next 10 years. The fiscal restraint is not there. At a time when Americans are tightening their belts, this budget grows the size of Government by 9 percent--9-percent growth for nondefense programs in just the year 2010 alone. If you go back to the 2009 budget we adopted and finalized in our appropriations process in this Congress and add the growth there into it as well, you will see a 20-percent growth--a 20-percent growth--in our nondefense spending in this country since the year 2008. The fiscal restraint is lacking in this budget proposal. In fact, there is only one category of this budget in which there is any actual reduction in spending, and that is in the defense side of the ledger. There are actual proposed reductions in defense spending in the President's budget. But only in that category. If we look at the tax side for a moment, you can see there is $1.4 trillion of new taxes. As I said a minute ago, that number is kind of hard to quantify. Why is that hard to quantify? Well, the President has said his tax policies would reduce taxes for 95 percent of American taxpayers. That statement can only be accurate if you only look at one kind of tax; namely, income taxes. I believe it is correct that in the income tax category, there will not be an increase for the vast majority of Americans, and, in fact, for most Americans we might actually see a reduction. But if you look at all the other proposals for tax increases and tax adjustments in the President's budget, you see there is going to be a huge increase in tax payments by Americans in every category of income in this country. Those taxes include things such as a brandnew--and this is the part that makes it difficult to give a final number--a brandnew tax on energy. It is part of what some have called the cap-and-trade proposal the President has made on carbon fuels. Others have called it a cap- and-tax approach. The point, however, is, under this new energy proposal, somewhere between $600 billion and $2 trillion of new cost will be put on carbon- emitting energy sources, and Americans will pay those increased costs, primarily in their utility bills. The President himself has said this proposal would cause electricity rates to skyrocket. We do not know exactly to what level, but everyone who uses electricity, everyone who pumps gas at the gas station, everyone who uses natural gas can expect to see--and we do not know the details yet, which is why we cannot give the details on the numbers, but they can expect to see significantly increased costs for them in their household budgets. Now, some would say that is not a tax. That is just a fee or it is just an increase in the price of your electricity as a result of some national policies. But however you say it, the fact is, there is a projected revenue to the Federal Treasury to come from people who will pay more on their electricity bills and pay more on their gasoline and other fuel bills that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.4 trillion. Many of us think it is going to be closer to $2 trillion. The list goes on. It is proposed the capital gains and dividends tax rates go up. Some argue that only hurts wealthy people. In fact, the argument made on this floor so often is: Any tax increase is justified as being a tax increase on only the wealthy. Well, if you look at dividends and capital gains and look at the kinds of people in this country who own stock, either in their own individual account or through a pension fund, it reaches far deeper than just the wealthy. The people who are impacted day in and day out by having to pay tax on dividends and capital gains are far more people than simply those who are the so- called wealthy. The list goes on. The bottom line is, the budget will raise taxes by about $1.4 trillion and raise spending--both in discretionary and mandatory levels--a greater amount. Now let me look at this last category shown on the chart. It is called mandatory savings. The number there is zero. Now, why do we have that column? In order to change--remember the law I told you about earlier: The entitlement programs are already the law. If we are going to change and gain savings in this category of mandatory spending, we have to literally vote to change the law. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to do that because we always face a filibuster when we try to find savings in this category of entitlement spending. But in the budget proposal the Budget Committee will put forward, the Budget Committee is allowed to propose that there be savings here. And then, if the Budget Committee can get that proposal adopted in the budget, our respective committees of jurisdiction in the areas where the entitlements lie are required by the budget to find those savings and make law-change proposals to Congress so we can achieve some savings. The reason I have this column on the chart is because in the budget that has been proposed, there are no savings proposed. There is not even a request that $1 of savings be found in the entire entitlement system. That is wrong also. Now, let's go to the next chart. This is a chart that shows the deficits we expect to face--not the national debt but the deficits, the yearly deficits we expect to face. That means the amount of money we will spend beyond our projected revenue. The blue line, as shown on the chart, is what we call the BEA baseline. What that means is that is current law. If we do not change any law and do not do anything in Congress and do not put any more increased spending into place, what would our deficits look like? We can see there is a big spike here, in about 2009 and 2010, and then it drops off dramatically. Under current law, it tails down rather dramatically over the next 10 years. Now, one of the reasons it goes down so dramatically over the next 10 years is that we have a number of tax cuts that were passed in the 2001 and 2003 timeframe that are going to expire, which means if we do nothing, taxes are going to go up dramatically, and we are going to see the deficit drop dramatically because everybody is going to be paying a lot more taxes. If we allow those tax cuts to stay in place--and I believe we are starting to get some consensus that we do that--then this line for what current law would be with those tax cuts staying in place would be somewhere between the red line and the blue line. The point I wish to make, though, is the red line is the proposed budget we are now dealing with. As my colleagues can see, the spending in excess of revenue is dramatically higher than current law under the proposed budget. There is another point that needs to be made, and I think this point shows it as well as anything. The President has said his goal is to reduce the deficit by half in the next 4 to 5 years, but as my colleagues can see by the chart, that will happen anyway under current law. Now, why will that happen anyway under current law? That will happen anyway under current law because this spike we are looking at is the result of the phenomenal spending spree that Congress has been on since last fall. Actually, even going into the spring of last year, you may recall that Congress, to stimulate the economy, passed a $158 billion bill, I think it was, for rebate checks, to send rebate checks out to Americans so they could stimulate the economy. Well, we have seen that those checks didn't actually stimulate the economy, but it did add $158 billion to our spending. Then we had the $700 billion TARP bill, $350 billion under President Bush and $350 billion under President Obama. We had the $800 billion stimulus package, much of which we will be spending out in this timeframe. We have had the auto bailout, and actually part of it--most of it, so far--has come from the TARP dollars. But we are seeing a spending spree by Congress which is driving these deficits up dramatically over the next 2 years. But assuming--and this is an important assumption--assuming Congress does not continue this pattern of bailouts and Congress does not continue this pattern of $800 billion stimulus spending bills, then we should see this spending rate of Congress drop back down. So assuming Congress doesn't continue this rampant spending spree it is on, the deficit will return itself to half without any real effort and, in fact, without any real cuts in spending. The last thing this chart shows that is very notable is, in the outyears--again, current law starts seeing us get our deficit under control, but the proposed budget starts us growing this deficit and leaves it at a permanent level around $600 billion. We are dealing with a proposed budget that leaves America with a proposed ongoing and growing deficit for the indefinite future of about $600 billion. That is not good enough. We need to be following a line on our deficit that brings us toward balance, and we can't do that. We can't achieve that. One last point: We had Secretary Geithner before our Budget Committee last week to talk about this budget. In his comments, Secretary Geithner acknowledged that the tax increases that are being proposed-- the ones I had on the previous chart--are going to actually harm our economy in our effort to build back right now. He acknowledged the point that this is the wrong time to be increasing taxes and that taxes at this time would have a chilling effect on our ability to restimulate our economic activity. But he defended these tax increase proposals by saying that they are not projected to take place until the year 2011, at which point the economy is supposed to be back in good shape. Therefore, we can let the economy get healthy again, and then we can hit it with some tax increases and then it will be OK. Well, first of all, I don't believe it is necessarily going to be OK to hit the economy as it is starting to stabilize again in 2011, even if it is starting to stabilize at that point. But there is no consensus that we will be out of this difficulty by that time. So I asked Secretary Geithner: If the economy is not strong by 2011, will you still push for these tax cuts--increases--or are these tax increases contingent on a strong economy? In other words, if we don't have the strength you are projecting we will have, will you still propose the tax increases? He ducked the question. I think the reason he ducked the question is because the answer was, yes; the taxes are going to go up regardless of what happens with the economy, and we are just hoping and projecting that we are not going to have any problem there because we think the economy is going to be fine in 2011. Well, I certainly hope the economy is fine in 2011, and I don't think that will be a good time to hit it with a huge tax burden again anyway, but it is clearly wrong to put into place a path toward tax increases when we don't know whether the economy is going to remain strong. Let's put up the last chart. The last chart just shows the debt we are growing. The chart before was deficits. The debt is the accumulation of all of our deficits over time. You will see right in here and around the 2009 timeframe, we were at around $6 trillion-- actually, it was growing up into the $7 trillion and $8 trillion level, and Congress is starting a spending spike that is starting to drive up our national debt. It is hard to get a handle on our national debt right now, but it is between $10 trillion and $11 trillion. It is projected that our national debt--excuse me, the debt held by the public, and there are different pieces of the debt--but the debt held by the public--that is the debt we talk about when we talk about China and Japan and other nations buying our bonds and pension plans and so forth. The debt held by the public under this proposed budget will double in 5 years and triple in 10 years. That is remarkable and it is scary that we could have a budget that proposes a wall of debt like this and does not put into place any kind of spending restraint proposals but adds increased taxes, which will make it harder for our economy to keep up with this spending level, and proposes no effort to address the entitlement growth that is probably the biggest driver of spending in the Federal budget. I guess I should clarify that--the biggest driver except when Congress gets engaged in stimulus packages and bailouts, at which point Congress becomes the biggest driver. But assuming we can stop the tendency in Congress to spend as rapidly as we have been doing over the last 6 months, then we must turn our attention to the entitlement programs and begin to find a way to find savings in them. So I will conclude with this: Many have said on this floor that this budget spends too much, taxes too much, and results in too much debt. It couldn't be said more succinctly or better. This budget jeopardizes the economic strength of our Nation. It taxes far too much, it spends far too much, and it leaves us with a legacy of debt that our children and our grandchildren will face to their detriment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to stand in behalf of and support of H.R. 146. This is what we passed earlier in the Senate as S. 22 and now, because of the procedural necessities between the House and the Senate as we seek to provide an opportunity for this legislation to reach the desk of the President, it has been amended to H.R. 146. To call this legislation bipartisan is an understatement. This bill contains over 150 individual provisions sponsored by almost 50 different Members, almost half of our colleagues in this Senate. It represents every region of the country and has almost an equal number of bills from each side of the aisle. It is going to provide significant protections to existing public lands, improve recreation, cultural and historic opportunities, and provide important economic benefits for rural economy States such as my home State of Idaho. Every bill in the package has gone through regular order. Most have had multiple hearings and markups in the Energy Committee. All are fully supported by the committee chairman and the ranking member. In fact, many of the provisions, such as my top legislative priority, the Owyhee initiative, are the result of years of extensive collaboration at the State and local levels in conjunction with elected officials, businesses, community leaders, outdoor enthusiasts, and other stakeholders. This legislation has been in preparation, also, for years. In fact, many of the provisions included in this legislation were initially worked on by the Energy Committee when the Republicans were in control of the Senate and Senator Pete Domenici was the chairman of the Energy Committee. Additionally, there is no direct spending in this authorizing bill. The package does not have any bills that have a CBO score without an offset, meaning that the spending authorized in this bill is offset. This is not to say that the legislation is without controversy or that it is unanimously supported. Few pieces of legislation that pass through this Chamber are. However, while any omnibus package by nature will contain elements that are troubling to some, the Energy Committee negotiated the inclusion of each bill in this package to successfully reach a compromise on which both sides of the aisle could agree. As with my Owyhee wilderness legislation, not everyone got exactly what they wanted, but both sides made concessions and believe the result is something they can put their support behind. As a result, this omnibus lands bill is widely supported and represents a diverse group of interests from every region of the country. Because of this, I strongly urge my colleagues to support its passage swiftly this week. Some are attacking the bill by saying it is a huge omnibus bill that contains over 150 separate individual pieces of legislation and that because it is so large, that is a reason to oppose it. Frankly, I am one of those in this Senate who does not like the notion of taking smaller pieces of legislation, in general, and packaging them into large omnibus bills without allowing those bills to go through orderly process and without allowing the committee process and the amendment process on the floor to fully work. This is not the first time this legislation has seen the floor of the Senate, however. As I said earlier, it has already passed the floor essentially in the same format as the proposed amendment of the Senator from New Mexico, as S. 22. It was on the floor previously and essentially in the same shape and we debated it multiple times. As I said, the individual pieces of this legislation have moved through the Energy Committee and have been approved by the Energy Committee as this process was followed. Historically it has been the way the Energy Committee approaches public lands legislation, to put them into large groups. Why? As I said, there are 150 pieces in this particular bill. Previous to this bill was another one which I believe had somewhere over 70 different pieces, and I will bet the Energy Committee today has another 50 or 70 or 100 pieces of legislation waiting for consideration. If every single one of them moved individually on the floor of the Senate, we would have little time on the floor for any other type of business. It has become a working procedure that these bills are grouped together and moved in one unit as we work among ourselves with regard to land management issues in our respective States so we can move forward. Let me give an example of what I am talking about, relating to my own specific state, Idaho. As I have indicated, my top legislative priority, the Owyhee initiative, is included in this bill. I am going to talk further about it in a few moments. But that is not the only bill relating to Idaho that is in this legislation. As a matter of fact, there are five or six bills in this legislation that relate to my home State of Idaho. Let me give an example of what they are so you can see why it is these bills are collected together and moved as one unit. One of them is S. 2354, the Twin Falls Land Exchange. This bill transfers four specified parcels of land in Twin Falls, ID, from the BLM to the city of Twin Falls, ID, for use to support the Auger Falls Project, which is a community park and recreation area. Again, many people who are not from the West, who do not realize how large the areas of public land are that we have out here, do not realize that when we make adjustments to land ownership between the Federal Government and the city or the county or other private entities, it requires an act of Congress. That is what one of these provisions in the bill is, an uncontroversial bill for this land exchange between the BLM and the city of Twin Falls. Another one is S. 262, to rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, who is an international authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the establishment of this National Conservation Area--the change of the name of a conservation area. Another of those pieces of legislation relevant to my home State of Idaho is the boundary adjustment to the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, another huge area in Idaho which has been previously, years and years ago, designated as wilderness, where we need to make a few boundary adjustments to include and exclude some specific lands. Another one is S. 542. The name is Snake, Boise, and Payette River Systems studies. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct feasibility studies on projects that address water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River Systems in Idaho that are considered appropriate for further study by the Bureau of Reclamation water storage assessment report; in other words, to help us manage our water issues in Federal lands that are managed in the State of Idaho. This legislation authorizes this important water study for the people of our State. Another of the bills in this package relating to the State of Idaho is the reauthorization of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. This amends the National Geologic Mapping Act to extend the deadlines for development of a 5-year strategic plan for the geologic mapping program and for appointment of an advisory committee. That applies a little bit more broadly than just to Idaho, but it is very important in Idaho that we have the proper and final conclusions of this mapping process for our State's land management. There are other pieces of legislation within this package that are not specific to Idaho but are very relevant to the citizens of other States. For example, one of the bills, S. 2593, is called Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 2008, which establishes a collaborative forest landscape restoration project to select and fund ecological restoration treatments for priority forest landscapes, an important part of our forest management policy that we have been working on for some time to get a more collaborative and effective way to manage our forests in our country. Another piece, the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act--this one designates the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail, a trail from Missoula, MT, to the Pacific Ocean, to proceed for the public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of the nationally significant natural and cultural features of the Ice Age floods. Again, I point these out simply to show the broad variety of the types of land management decisions and acts, pieces of legislation that are included in this bill, which is being attacked as something that was just thrown together in a haphazard fashion by those who wanted to expand the role of the Federal Government in controlling the public lands. I can tell you, in my home State of Idaho, there is very strong resistance to increasing the reach of the Federal Government. The decisions that we have made in supporting these types of legislation have been made in terms of trying to protect and preserve those very kinds of issues. I will mention one more, S. 2875. This is one that is very important to us in the West, probably not that big of an issue in the East. It is called the Wolf Livestock Loss Prevention and Mitigation Act, introduced by Senator Tester of Montana. I am a cosponsor of it. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a 5-year demonstration program to provide grants to States and Indian tribes to assist livestock producers with respect to losses they may acquire on Federal, State, private, or Indian land, to undertake proactive, nonlethal activities to reduce the risk of livestock loss as a result of predation by wolves. The reason the predation of wolves has become an issue is because under the Endangered Species Act, the wolves have been reintroduced into this area. Now a conflict has arisen as to wolves that, frankly, are predators with regard to livestock. This legislation in some States is not an issue, might be irrelevant. To people in my State, it is a huge issue. The bill continues with issue after issue in other States where Senators, with the renaming of recreation areas, the adjustment of boundaries, the establishment of water studies and the like, have been working with land management issues in their States to proceed with rational, well thought out policy changes that they and their States support. I do not believe there is a single piece of legislation in this bill that is not supported by the Senators from the States in which the land sits, where the legislation impacts. Now, let me take a few minutes while I wait for my colleagues who want to come and bring amendments. I would say right now to my colleague from Oklahoma or any others who would like to come and either debate this matter on the floor or bring forward an amendment and be given the amendment consideration process, that I am prepared to work with them as soon as they arrive on the floor for that purpose. But until they arrive, let me talk a little bit about the Owyhee Initiative. I said earlier it was my No. 1 priority for this legislation. Many people, when I say ``Owyhee,'' wonder if I am saying ``Hawaii.'' It is Owyhee, O-w-y-h-e-e, and it is named after the Owyhee Canyonlands in southwestern Idaho, one of the most beautiful places that you can find in many parts of this country, but one of the most beautiful parts of the country with a tremendous and rich environmental and cultural heritage. It is also an area where we have been having conflicts over land management policies for decades. Conflict among whom? Well, in this area, this beautiful gorgeous area of Idaho, not only do we have a rich environmental heritage and flora and fauna that abound, but we have livestock owners and ranchers. We have two Indian tribes. We have an Air Force training range both on land, as well as the air rights that impact on the area. We have, as you might guess, hunters and fishers, and those who would like to recreate in the area in off-road vehicles or backpacking or rafting on the rivers or any number of other ways. And the types of uses that people want to put this gorgeous land to occasionally--not occasionally, regularly--come into conflict. Because of that, 8 years ago I was asked by a number of those from different interests in this land to see if I would host a collaborative effort to bring together those interested in all different perspectives, and instead of fighting in court or fighting in public hearings to sit down around the table and see if we could not collaboratively work out a solution. I agreed to do so, and we started the Owyhee Initiative. That was literally about 8 years ago. Since that time, I am pleased to tell you that this collaborative effort between all levels of government, multiple users of public land and conservationists to resolve these decades-old heated land use battles in the Owyhee Canyonlands have come to a conclusion by all who support this legislation. Now, I cannot tell you that literally every interest group possible supports it, but I can tell you that with the exception, in my opinion, of those in extreme positions, the vast majority of the people of Idaho and people across this country with interests in this great land are supportive of this land management act which has been proposed in Congress. Owyhee County contains some of the most unique and beautiful canyonlands in the world, and offers large areas in which all of us can enjoy its grandeur. Now, 73 percent of the land base in this county is owned by the United States of America, and it is located within 1 hour's drive of one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation, Boise, ID. This combination of all of this incredible bounty, the closeness to a very large, growing population and the large amount of land ownership by the Federal Government, together with all of these other multiple uses to which the people who love the land want to put it to, has resulted in an explosive effect on property values, community expansion development, and ever-increasing demands on public land. Given this confluence of circumstances, Owyhee County can certainly be understood to be a focus of conflict over the years, with heated political and regulatory battles that many thought would never end. The conflict over the land management is both inevitable but also understandable. And the question we face is, how do we manage it? The wonderful people I will mention who worked on this effort came together and were able to find win-win solutions where everybody was better off with this legislation than with the status quo. The county commissioners said enough is enough, and I have to give credit to them for their tremendous work. As we went forward, we ran into some sharp turns and steep inclines and burdens and hurdles in the roads, sharp rocks, deep ruts, sand burrs, what have you. But we worked hard for the last 7 or 8 years to come up with this legislation which I now support. The commissioners appointed a chairman, an extraordinary gentleman, Fred Grant. They formed a work group that included the Wilderness Society, the Idaho Conservation League, the Nature Conservancy, Idaho Outfitters and Guides, the U.S. Air Force, the Sierra Club, the county Soil Conservation Districts, Owyhee Cattleman's Association, the Owyhee Borderlands Trust, People for the Owyhees, the Shoshone and Paiute Tribes, and others to join their efforts. They all worked together, and we came up with this legislation. Now, I see that others have come in, and I believe they may want to begin making remarks, so I will wrap up rather quickly. I have a list of the names of the individuals who worked so hard over the years to bring together a win-win situation for the people of Idaho. These people came from groups and institutions and interests that historically have been battling head to head. Instead, they were willing to work through this in a way that I believe sets a tremendous example for how we should approach land management decisions and conflicts in this Nation. That is another reason this important legislation should pass. This legislation, some call it a wilderness bill, and it does have wilderness in it--I call it a comprehensive management bill, not just wilderness, but wild and scenic rivers. It deals with cattle and ranching. It deals with private property ownership. It deals with off- road vehicle use. It deals with travel plans. It deals with hunting and fishing and outfitters and the guides and all of the other different aspects of the way that people would want to use beautiful land like this. I commend the commitment and leadership of everybody who has worked to make this legislation possible. Today is a very important day for them. Although we will probably still spend some time on the floor of this Senate working on this and the other important issues in this legislation, it is my hope we can expeditiously handle the amendments that have been proposed to this legislation and then move forward with just as expeditious activity and send this legislation back to the House for, hopefully, its final consideration. Again, I thank my colleagues for their forbearance and for listening to this one more time. I am looking forward to the debate that we will have on the authorized amendments that have been made in order. I will work with my colleagues to assure that we pass this legislation as quickly as possible. I would like to recognize and thank the people who have been the real driving force behind this process: Fred Grant, chairman of the Owyhee Initiative Work Group, his assistant Staci Grant, and Dr. Ted Hoffman, Sheriff Gary Aman; the Owyhee County Commissioners: Hal Tolmie, Chris Salova, and Dick Reynolds and Chairman Terry Gibson of the Shoshone Paiute Tribes. I am grateful to Governor Jim Risch of the Great State of Idaho for all of his support. Thanks to Colonel Rock of the U.S. Air Force at Mountain Home Air Force Base; Craig Gherke and John McCarthy of the Wilderness Society; Rick Johnson and John Robison of the Idaho Conservation League, Inez Jaca representing Owyhee County; Dr. Chad Gibson representing the Owyhee Cattleman's Association; Brenda Richards representing private property owners in Owyhee County; Cindy and Frank Bachman representing the Soil Conservation Districts in Owyhee County; Marcia Argust with the Campaign for America's Wilderness; Grant Simmons of the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association; Bill Sedivy with Idaho Rivers United; Tim Lowry of the Owyhee County Farm Bureau; Bill Walsh representing Southern Idaho Desert Racing Association; Lou Lunte and Will Whelan of the Nature Conservancy for all of their hard work and dedication. I would also like to thank the Idaho Back Country Horseman, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Roger Singer of the Sierra Club, the South Board of Control and the Owyhee Project managers, and all the other water rights holders who support me today. This process truly benefited from the diversity of these groups and their willingness to cooperate to reach a common goal of protecting the land on which they live, work, and play. The Owyhee Canyonlands and its inhabitants are truly a treasure of Idaho and the United States; I hope you will join me in ensuring their future.

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

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.