Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a quiet patriot from Idaho. Our National Guard and Reserve troops who have been called up to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq have left behind not only families, but in many cases, full-time jobs. Many employers go the extra mile to provide support to their deployed employees, their families, and communities. One such employer-patriot is Albertson's Incorporated, headquartered in Boise, ID. Albertson's Incorporated recently received recognition from the Department of Defense for its extraordinary ongoing efforts in support of deployed employees, and those employees' families. The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, ESGR, has chosen Albertson's Incorporated as one of only four companies nationwide to receive the 2003 ESGR Home Front Award. The Department of Defense recognizes the efforts of these companies to take steps such as providing pay differential, the continuation of benefits when their employees are mobilized, and a willingness to advocate Guard and Reserve service among their industry peers. With many employees currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Albertson's has shown dedication to the values of freedom and democracy, and perseverance in light of limited personnel resources. Albertson's has translated patriotic words into action, and shown that corporations as well as individuals can lend a helping hand to the men and women of the Armed Forces, their families, and our Nation as a whole.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I give a well-deserved ``thank you'' to a member of my staff who recently left the U.S. Senate. Ted Koch was with me a short time as a congressional fellow on leave from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and has since returned to Idaho. During this experience here, I benefited from his expertise and abilities, and wanted to let him know how much I have appreciated his contributions. Ted stepped into the breach upon the departure of my staff director at the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water. He filled the role expertly and with great enthusiasm. I appreciate that Ted aspires to principles embodied by another ``Ted,'' President Theodore Roosevelt. He deeply enjoys and understands the ecology of hunting and fishing. He strives to make progress. Ted and I both believe that the best hope for people and wildlife in Idaho is to defend property rights. With greater certainty about the inherent value of property, landowners have the confidence and freedom to advance their own ideas for conservation. These qualities and beliefs make Ted a valuable spokesman for intelligent conversation in Idaho. He has made himself a friend of Idaho through his friendships in the State and here in Washington. I appreciate his invaluable participation on my staff, and wish him well in future endeavors. I have no doubt about his continued success.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the recently announced decision of Dr. Bill Shipp to retire as president and laboratory director of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, INEEL. After over 4 years as laboratory director and 3 years as president of Bechtel BWXT Idaho, the company that manages and operates the INEEL for the U.S. Department of Energy, Dr. Shipp is retiring to pursue other endeavors. Knowing him as I do, hunting and fishing will be high on the list of ``other endeavors.'' Dr. Shipp came to Idaho as part of the Bechtel team that won the contract to manage the INEEL in 1999. He had previously served with distinction as an associate lab director of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. His years at the INEEL have been filled with accomplishment, leadership, and an ability to adapt to ever-changing circumstances. Under his leadership, the INEEL met critical cleanup milestones to cleanup the site and ship waste out of Idaho. The leadership he has provided at the INEEL has resulted in the growth of both the funding and respect for the INEEL's research and development capabilities. Within the Department of Energy's National Laboratory network he is respected by his peers. In 1999, Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne named Dr. Shipp as Idaho's first Science and Technology Advisor to the Governor. In that capacity, he made important recommendations to the State and the Governor regarding the Idaho education system. Dr. Shipp's record of leadership and accomplishment was recognized by Purdue University when it named him one of the institution's distinguished alumni in 2002. He returned to West Lafayette, IN, to receive that award, and I know that was a special moment for Dr. Shipp, his wife Linda and their children, Jennifer and John. I enjoyed meeting with Dr. Shipp when he has come by my office to update me on how things are going at the INEEL. During these meetings, one of us would ask if the other had been hunting. As I think back, I realize lab directors get to hunt more than Senators, but what I remember most is Dr. Shipp and I always made plans to hunt quail together at a mutual friend's ranch. One season, our plans were cancelled because he broke his leg while hunting. I am sorry we never did go quail hunting together, but I want him to know the offer still stands. Within the DOE system, laboratory directors serve as stewards of national assets. These are difficult jobs where mistakes are not tolerated and success is expected. Within these demanding constraints, Dr. Shipp set the standard for performance and accomplishment with a commitment to safety and people. More than that, Bill Shipp is a man who others look to for guidance and support. I am pleased to call Bill Shipp a friend and I want to say thank you for your service to Idaho, the DOE and the Nation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I would like to honor William Howard Taft Elementary School in Boise, ID, on receiving the prestigious No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools Award. The Blue Ribbon Schools Award is highly sought after and is awarded to schools that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement. Taft reflects our Nation's commitment to high academic standards and accountability. Taft teachers, parents, and students have demonstrated they are ``deeply committed to establishing and upholding high standards of learning.'' This is reflected in the success of their students. Of course, improvement and achievement do not happen in a vacuum. Behind this award lie days, weeks, and months of hard work by dedicated individuals who have been actively involved in the teaching and learning process. Dr. Susan Williamson, Taft's Principal, and her staff have reaffirmed our commitment to high-quality education in Idaho. I am pleased to commend Dr. Williamson, as well as the teachers, parents, administrators, community members and all 353 students who have helped make Taft Elementary such a great place to learn. As a recipient of The Blue Ribbon Schools Award, William Howard Taft Elementary, you do Idaho proud.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I honor North Idaho College's student newspaper The Sentinel for over 70 years of exceptional journalism. Since the 1930s, North Idaho College has published a student newspaper in Coeur d'Alene. The Sentinel has a remarkable record of honors, including the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award, in addition to several regional and national first place awards in various competitions. It is perhaps the newspaper's most recent awards that demonstrate most clearly the tremendous passion and dedication to excellence that exists at the Sentinel. At this year's Society of Professional Journalists' national convention, The Sentinel received first place in general excellence for nondaily newspapers, and first place in the online newspaper category. In both competitions, North Idaho College, a 2-year school, was chosen over 4-year schools with much larger enrollments. North Idaho College, former Sentinel Managing Editors Betsy Dalessio and Jerry Manter, advisor Nils Rosdahl, and all members of The Sentinel staff past and present are to be commended for their hard work in creating a newspaper of distinction. They, along with all of the citizens of the State of Idaho, can be proud of North Idaho College's award-winning student newspaper, The Sentinel.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for your efforts, and those of the subcommittee ranking member, Senator Reid, in working with Senator Craig and me to support the important work of the U.S. Corps of Engineers in the Clearwater River Valley to mitigate damages caused by fluctuating levels in the Dworshak Reservoir. As my colleagues know, the challenges of responding to the riverine needs of endangered salmon have been an enormous strain on the communities of the Pacific Northwest. We all share the commitment to restore Pacific Northwest salmon. This is a national interest. However, the efforts to restore the runs have a disproportionate and direct impact in communities in Idaho and the Pacific Northwest. The town of Orofino in the Clearwater River Valley of Idaho is just such a community. The town sits at the base of the Dworshak Reservoir, which is capped by a Corps-managed dam. The Corps periodically uses water from Dworshak Reservoir to help adjust temperatures in the downstream rivers when salmon are making their runs to and from the ocean. When spills are required, the levels of Dworshak Reservoir fall. Sometimes, this can amount to drops of approximately 90 feet. A 90-foot drop is catastrophic to recreational opportunities provided by the reservoir. Boat docks and trailer ramps no longer reach the water, beaches dangle precariously above the waterline, and muddy banks exposed for as far as the eye can see. The Corps has offered its help in mitigating the economic hardships caused by its actions in periodic reductions in reservoir water levels. I applaud that offer. I also commend Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for providing the extra resources in the operations and maintenance account for the Dworshak Reservoir in this legislation to accommodate those mitigation efforts. I yield to the distinguished chairman to elaborate on that point.

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the chairman, and I yield back the floor. section 104

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I offer congratulations to the Idaho Mining Association on its 100th anniversary. The mining industry has long been an economic force in Idaho, which is nicknamed the Gem State, and the association has been a strong advocate for that industry. The association held its first meeting in the summer of 1903, and was first known as the Idaho Prospectors and Operators. The occasion of the meeting was an urgent invitation from the Governor of Missouri to Idaho Governor Frank R. Gooding that Idaho furnish a display of mineral products for the 1904 International Exposition in St. Louis. Ten years later, this group changed its name to the Idaho Mining Association and has operated continuously since. Early records of the group clearly state its original purpose: It is imperative that there be a better understanding on the part of the people generally, and of those who enact and administer our laws particularly; that the economy of our nation, the happiness and welfare of our people, the safety of the Republic itself depend upon a healthy mineral industry. The importance of minerals in our lives and to our economy has not diminished over the past century. The price and availability of raw materials are critically important to our manufacturing industries. The computer, telecommunication and electronic industries that represent an ever-growing share of our economic output, and dominate our daily lives, wouldn't be possible without the vast array of minerals produced in this country. We even rely on minerals to produce the new equipment that enhances the productivity of the nation's workers. It remains essential that we, as ``those who enact and administer our laws,'' continue to recognize the importance of our domestic mining industry. Once again, my congratulations to the Idaho Mining Association and its members as they mark this important milestone. I send my very best wishes for its continued success in serving the best interests of the State of Idaho and the nation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation to John Alexander Anderson, my senior policy advisor. John has been an important member of my staff. His counsel and efforts will be missed. As my senior advisor on banking, finance, trade, and transportation issues, John managed policy initiatives and assisted me on numerous legislative accomplishments. He was also my liaison to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. John has been a tireless advocate for policies that promote economic growth, sound government, and financial deregulation. He has a keen comprehension of banking law and understands its impact on markets, investments, and business decisions. He has helped me fight numerous unsound financial initiatives, such as our recent success in protecting derivatives products from unnecessary Federal regulation. He has always been a critical advocate of good policy, including lowering Federal taxes and implementing market-opening trade agreements. Prior to joining my staff, John served as a legislative assistant to Representative Jack Metcalf of Washington. Before his tenure with Congressman Metcalf, John worked for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Beyond his professional qualifications, John has an astute political sense and outstanding personal qualities. His loyalty, intellectual independence, talent for reaching consensus and his tactical ability to realize desired outcomes are all characteristics recognized and admired by his peers. He shares my political philosophy and commitment to the principles of limited government and open markets. John proves that the old tag line--better government through better people--is still on the mark. It is rewarding to see John embrace a new challenge with the leadership and integrity that he demonstrated as a member of my staff. As he enters a new phase, I know my Senate colleagues will join me in acknowledging John's dedicated service as a congressional staffer and wish him every success in his future role. I will miss his counsel but I know John will remain a valued friend and advisor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer congratulations to the Owyhee Cattlemen's Association on its 125th year celebration. This makes this organization the oldest cattle group in my home State of Idaho. From the original Owyhee Cattle and Horse Growers Association, which formed in 1878 to protect livestock from rustlers and Indians, to the association's present influential position on property rights, water rights, and grazing matters, it has been an effectively involved force in Idaho. The Owyhee Cattlemen's Association has benefited from a long line of top-notch leaders, and it continues to be instrumental in representing the cattle industry in a variety of issue areas including rangeland monitoring, species issues, and environmental concerns. These are all far different from cattle rustling activities, but perhaps similar in economic effects on the cattle industry. The association has also played a leading and pioneering role in negotiating agreements and initiatives that work towards the future viability and profitability of the entire grazing community. I particularly appreciate that it has recognized the strength of collaborative efforts in dealing with the multiple interest groups that are becoming stakeholders and hopefully partners in public land stewardship. The past strength and resolve of the Owyhee Cattleman's Association has served the cattle industry well, and will continue to ensure its place at the discussions of future issues, as we advance into the next 100 years of public land grazing. Once again, my congratulations to the Owyhee Cattlemen's Association and its members as it marks a milestone anniversary. It has an unprecedented history of accomplishments in the cattle industry. I send my very best wishes for its continued success in serving the Owyhee County constituent base and the entire Nation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, Idaho faces grim news this morning as the deaths of two young wildland firefighters are reported. They were killed late Tuesday afternoon while fighting the Cramer fire in the Salmon-Challis National Forest west of the town of Salmon near the confluence of the middle fork of the Salmon River and the main Salmon. These men are heroes of battle, just as the men and women fighting overseas. They fought a faceless, terrifying enemy with bravery, heroism, and selfless dedication to the families and communities of central Idaho. Their sacrifice will be remembered for years to come as their names are added to the list of those fallen in service to their country in the capacity of wildland firefighters. I pray that those who continue to fight fires in Idaho and across the West this summer remain out of harm's way as they perform their valiant and critical work to preserve homes, property, and life. The tragedy is that two more people have died. We hope it is not followed by more as we enter another fire season. The truth is that our forests are overgrown, dead and dying, and this kind of tragedy was inevitable. Legislation that I supported in the past would have made a difference. Had it been enacted last year or the year before, these senseless deaths could very well have been avoided. Idaho's wildfire season is just getting into its full swing, and we are asking our wildland firefighters in Idaho and throughout the rest of the Nation to do a dangerous job. We in Congress owe it to them and to the family members of those who didn't make it to provide them with the tools necessary to get the job done as safely and quickly as possible. These deaths are a tragic reminder of the sacrifices and risks wildland firefighters make to ensure the safety of our communities. Congress must act to reduce this threat to our communities and improve the safety of our firefighters. Today, Senator Lincoln and I are introducing bipartisan legislation to address the forest health crisis facing our nation. As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, Senator Lincoln and I have learned of the similarities between the problems facing the ecosystems of eastern and western forests. We know that when Congress acts to address the health of forests in the West--forests that have been devastated by fires that garner national attention--we must also reduce the risks to our forests across the country. The threat is not just to our property and lives, but clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat. We must take a comprehensive approach to protecting our resources, and Senator Lincoln and I attempt to do that in this bill. The America's Healthy Forests Restoration and Research Act builds on the bipartisan legislation that passed the House of Representatives and is now under consideration in the Senate. Like the House proposal, our bill addresses the ``analysis paralysis'' that prevents us from taking actions to protect our lands. For lands that are at risk of catastrophic fire or that have been severely damaged by insect or disease infestations or the aftermath of severe weather events, such as windthrow or ice storms, the bill creates an expedited process to allow for treatment. For these specific projects on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands--with the exception of lands that are wilderness areas or Wilderness Study Areas--the bill provides for time limits on appeals, reforms the appeals process, and provides guidance to the courts. The per-acre costs of fuel reduction projects is higher and the amount of time to consider a project is longer with each alternative the agencies are required to consider. Each of these alternatives requires a complete and thorough environmental analysis. By selecting projects through the collaborative process and requiring an in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts of the specific project, we can ensure that the impacts of the project are addressed, without the analysis paralysis caused by the examination of additional alternatives--especially when projects are most often appealed based on failure to complete adequate analysis on alternatives rather than the substance of the project. The time for action is now, we should not let fuels reduction projects be delayed or lose their effectiveness through frivolous appeals. By requiring the Forest Service to develop a new process that allows for public collaboration, by requiring substantive comments to the project, and by requiring participation in the process before allowing litigation, the bill ensures that public comment is meaningful and constructive. No longer will these important projects be stopped simply by 33 cents on a postcard. Our bill also requires that the courts balance the long term effects with the short term effects of a project. This balance of harm should be common sense, but that has not been the case. The courts are reminded they should balance the impact of inaction in their decision making. This streamlining of the appeals and judicial review process will counter the growing use of appeals and litigation as delaying and frustrating techniques rather than the constructive recourse they were intended for. Cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and ensuring for robust public participation--as outlined in the widely-supported Western Governors Association's collaborative strategy--is a win-win for our forests and our communities. In addition, by streamlining the process, we get more money on the ground and in action to protect our forests. Appeals, litigation, and extensive analysis of unneeded alternatives mean less money for projects. Some estimate that only sixty percent of funds allocated for fuels reduction actually makes it to the ground. Streamlining the process should result in significantly more resources to address forest health. I have long been an advocate of better utilization of biomass and small diameter materials. This bill addresses the need for more research and more markets. Our bi-partisan bill provides grants to those who would use biomass for fuel or other beneficial purposes. Instead of leaving fuels in our forests to burn or tossing them in landfills, we can reduce the risks to our environment and create an incentive to use what has traditionally not been cost effective to use. Unlike the house bill, we expand eligible uses beyond just useful fuels. In Idaho, we have companies that can use this material for environmental restoration. We need to do more to create incentives to use this material. To that end, our bill also includes expanded research into utilization and harvesting of small diameter materials. Light on the land techniques that find more and better uses of biomass and small diameter materials can revitalize our rural communities. Research into the costs and obstacles to using these materials will go a long way toward expanded markets and rural development. The bill also provides direction for technology transfer to get this information from the universities and scientists to the communities and small businesses in rural parts of America. Our bipartisan bill makes research a central tenet. From research into biomass, forests conditions, upland hardwoods, the measure brings a new focus to forest threats. Our legislation expands the research to allow for landscape level research on forest-damaging agents. Fire, insects and disease, and weather events pose a significant threat to our forest ecosystems. The bill provides for cooperation with colleges and universities in applied research to combat these threats. The bill also focuses research on preserving upland hardwoods. Not enough is known about preserving and restoring the upland hardwood forests of the South. The creation of an upland hardwood forest research center will go a long way toward finding ways to better protect, rehabilitate, restore, and utilize these important resources. The proposal includes a watershed program that will help foresters enhance water quality in our forests. As many know, our forests serve as critical watersheds that provide drinking water to our communities. This bill provides for grants to allow for technical assistance, education, and financial assistance to enhance our efforts to ensure clean waters for our communities and wildlife. A program to maintain forested habitat for threatened and endangered species is also an important part of this legislation. By providing for short and long-term restoration agreements the program offers incentives to maintain and utilize efforts that protect species and prevent others from being listed. The legislation provides assistance to address the problem of nonnative invasive plants, trees, shrubs, and vines. Across the country, the expansion of nonnative invasive plants has changed ecosystems making them more susceptible to threats that could result in catastrophic fires. Our proposal provides assistance to landowners in addressing these invasives. Finally, the bill declares that the enhanced community fire protection program is an important program in reducing risks to communities. This program, which we enacted as part of the 2002 Farm Bill, provides assistance to communities in reducing fire threats. Providing funding for this program, coupled with the savings from streamlining the process, will provide for meaningful progress in reducing the wildfire threat. I agree with Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, who says we need to move the focus from what we take to what we leave. As he has identified, too many are looking at this as a zero-sum game. They seek someone to blame for forest health problems or argue that logging is inherently bad. We need to get beyond that fallacious argument and realize that what is important is restoring a healthy ecosystem: an ecosystem that allows for a natural fire regime to exist without threatening our communities and lives. I hope my colleagues will join me moving beyond the narrow focus that currently passes for forest policy, this zero-sum game, and look at the needs of our forest ecosystems. This bill is a bipartisan effort that enhances the House-passed legislation. It sets a mark that the majority of the Senate can and should support. The skies over Idaho's capitol city, Boise, are smoke-filled this afternoon, and another tiny town on the edge of Idaho's Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, Atlanta, is threatened as fire encroaches on the homes there. Firefighting resources are stretched to the limit as wildland fires are burning throughout Idaho and the West. Wildfires this year have charred some 1.46 million acres nationwide. The National Interagency Fire Center said there were 49 large fires burning in the West, with more than 350 thousand areas of active wildfires. Let us in Congress take a stand now to help protect our forests and keep them from going up in smoke every year. I look forward to working with my colleagues to garner their support for this much-needed, bipartisan legislation, and know that they join me in sending condolences to the families of the two young men who died fighting a fire that may very well have been preventable.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, Idaho faces grim news this morning as the deaths of two young wildland firefighters are reported. They were killed late Tuesday afternoon while fighting the Cramer fire in the Salmon-Challis National Forest west of the town of Salmon near the confluence of the middle fork of the Salmon River and the main Salmon. These men are heroes of battle, just as the men and women fighting overseas. They fought a faceless, terrifying enemy with bravery, heroism, and selfless dedication to the families and communities of central Idaho. Their sacrifice will be remembered for years to come as their names are added to the list of those fallen in service to their country in the capacity of wildland firefighters. I pray that those who continue to fight fires in Idaho and across the West this summer remain out of harm's way as they perform their valiant and critical work to preserve homes, property, and life. The tragedy is that two more people have died. We hope it is not followed by more as we enter another fire season. The truth is that our forests are overgrown, dead and dying, and this kind of tragedy was inevitable. Legislation that I supported in the past would have made a difference. Had it been enacted last year or the year before, these senseless deaths could very well have been avoided. Idaho's wildfire season is just getting into its full swing, and we are asking our wildland firefighters in Idaho and throughout the rest of the Nation to do a dangerous job. We in Congress owe it to them and to the family members of those who didn't make it to provide them with the tools necessary to get the job done as safely and quickly as possible. These deaths are a tragic reminder of the sacrifices and risks wildland firefighters make to ensure the safety of our communities. Congress must act to reduce this threat to our communities and improve the safety of our firefighters. Today, Senator Lincoln and I are introducing bipartisan legislation to address the forest health crisis facing our nation. As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, Senator Lincoln and I have learned of the similarities between the problems facing the ecosystems of eastern and western forests. We know that when Congress acts to address the health of forests in the West--forests that have been devastated by fires that garner national attention--we must also reduce the risks to our forests across the country. The threat is not just to our property and lives, but clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat. We must take a comprehensive approach to protecting our resources, and Senator Lincoln and I attempt to do that in this bill. The America's Healthy Forests Restoration and Research Act builds on the bipartisan legislation that passed the House of Representatives and is now under consideration in the Senate. Like the House proposal, our bill addresses the ``analysis paralysis'' that prevents us from taking actions to protect our lands. For lands that are at risk of catastrophic fire or that have been severely damaged by insect or disease infestations or the aftermath of severe weather events, such as windthrow or ice storms, the bill creates an expedited process to allow for treatment. For these specific projects on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands--with the exception of lands that are wilderness areas or Wilderness Study Areas--the bill provides for time limits on appeals, reforms the appeals process, and provides guidance to the courts. The per-acre costs of fuel reduction projects is higher and the amount of time to consider a project is longer with each alternative the agencies are required to consider. Each of these alternatives requires a complete and thorough environmental analysis. By selecting projects through the collaborative process and requiring an in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts of the specific project, we can ensure that the impacts of the project are addressed, without the analysis paralysis caused by the examination of additional alternatives--especially when projects are most often appealed based on failure to complete adequate analysis on alternatives rather than the substance of the project. The time for action is now, we should not let fuels reduction projects be delayed or lose their effectiveness through frivolous appeals. By requiring the Forest Service to develop a new process that allows for public collaboration, by requiring substantive comments to the project, and by requiring participation in the process before allowing litigation, the bill ensures that public comment is meaningful and constructive. No longer will these important projects be stopped simply by 33 cents on a postcard. Our bill also requires that the courts balance the long term effects with the short term effects of a project. This balance of harm should be common sense, but that has not been the case. The courts are reminded they should balance the impact of inaction in their decision making. This streamlining of the appeals and judicial review process will counter the growing use of appeals and litigation as delaying and frustrating techniques rather than the constructive recourse they were intended for. Cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and ensuring for robust public participation--as outlined in the widely-supported Western Governors Association's collaborative strategy--is a win-win for our forests and our communities. In addition, by streamlining the process, we get more money on the ground and in action to protect our forests. Appeals, litigation, and extensive analysis of unneeded alternatives mean less money for projects. Some estimate that only sixty percent of funds allocated for fuels reduction actually makes it to the ground. Streamlining the process should result in significantly more resources to address forest health. I have long been an advocate of better utilization of biomass and small diameter materials. This bill addresses the need for more research and more markets. Our bi-partisan bill provides grants to those who would use biomass for fuel or other beneficial purposes. Instead of leaving fuels in our forests to burn or tossing them in landfills, we can reduce the risks to our environment and create an incentive to use what has traditionally not been cost effective to use. Unlike the house bill, we expand eligible uses beyond just useful fuels. In Idaho, we have companies that can use this material for environmental restoration. We need to do more to create incentives to use this material. To that end, our bill also includes expanded research into utilization and harvesting of small diameter materials. Light on the land techniques that find more and better uses of biomass and small diameter materials can revitalize our rural communities. Research into the costs and obstacles to using these materials will go a long way toward expanded markets and rural development. The bill also provides direction for technology transfer to get this information from the universities and scientists to the communities and small businesses in rural parts of America. Our bipartisan bill makes research a central tenet. From research into biomass, forests conditions, upland hardwoods, the measure brings a new focus to forest threats. Our legislation expands the research to allow for landscape level research on forest-damaging agents. Fire, insects and disease, and weather events pose a significant threat to our forest ecosystems. The bill provides for cooperation with colleges and universities in applied research to combat these threats. The bill also focuses research on preserving upland hardwoods. Not enough is known about preserving and restoring the upland hardwood forests of the South. The creation of an upland hardwood forest research center will go a long way toward finding ways to better protect, rehabilitate, restore, and utilize these important resources. The proposal includes a watershed program that will help foresters enhance water quality in our forests. As many know, our forests serve as critical watersheds that provide drinking water to our communities. This bill provides for grants to allow for technical assistance, education, and financial assistance to enhance our efforts to ensure clean waters for our communities and wildlife. A program to maintain forested habitat for threatened and endangered species is also an important part of this legislation. By providing for short and long-term restoration agreements the program offers incentives to maintain and utilize efforts that protect species and prevent others from being listed. The legislation provides assistance to address the problem of nonnative invasive plants, trees, shrubs, and vines. Across the country, the expansion of nonnative invasive plants has changed ecosystems making them more susceptible to threats that could result in catastrophic fires. Our proposal provides assistance to landowners in addressing these invasives. Finally, the bill declares that the enhanced community fire protection program is an important program in reducing risks to communities. This program, which we enacted as part of the 2002 Farm Bill, provides assistance to communities in reducing fire threats. Providing funding for this program, coupled with the savings from streamlining the process, will provide for meaningful progress in reducing the wildfire threat. I agree with Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, who says we need to move the focus from what we take to what we leave. As he has identified, too many are looking at this as a zero-sum game. They seek someone to blame for forest health problems or argue that logging is inherently bad. We need to get beyond that fallacious argument and realize that what is important is restoring a healthy ecosystem: an ecosystem that allows for a natural fire regime to exist without threatening our communities and lives. I hope my colleagues will join me moving beyond the narrow focus that currently passes for forest policy, this zero-sum game, and look at the needs of our forest ecosystems. This bill is a bipartisan effort that enhances the House-passed legislation. It sets a mark that the majority of the Senate can and should support. The skies over Idaho's capitol city, Boise, are smoke-filled this afternoon, and another tiny town on the edge of Idaho's Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, Atlanta, is threatened as fire encroaches on the homes there. Firefighting resources are stretched to the limit as wildland fires are burning throughout Idaho and the West. Wildfires this year have charred some 1.46 million acres nationwide. The National Interagency Fire Center said there were 49 large fires burning in the West, with more than 350 thousand areas of active wildfires. Let us in Congress take a stand now to help protect our forests and keep them from going up in smoke every year. I look forward to working with my colleagues to garner their support for this much-needed, bipartisan legislation, and know that they join me in sending condolences to the families of the two young men who died fighting a fire that may very well have been preventable.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Arthur Brown, who has been a long-time resident of Idaho and a great contributor to our State and its economy. Art Brown came to Idaho from South Africa 36 years ago to begin a new career in the mountains of Idaho's Silver Valley. Art, his wife Tiia, and their children began a journey that would support not only them but a company and our community. As an engineer down in the mines, Art pursued the American Dream. After years of hard work and commitment, he rose to become the chairman and chief executive officer of Hecla Mining Company, which was the top performer on the New York Stock Exchange in 1979 and again in 2002. Throughout his journey, Art never lost sight of his family and community. He served his local community as the mayor of Pinehurst. He led youth golf and ski programs. Art even gained a reputation as a head cheerleader of sorts, running the sidelines at his daughter's basketball games. Most notable is the culture of community service he fostered at Hecla, first by his example and then by encouragement to his employees to do the same thing. Giving back to the community became a way of life for a Hecla employee under Art's direction. Hecla Mining has been a part of the fabric of Idaho for over 112 years. And so have people like Art Brown, who contribute to their community, their State, and so much more. This year Art will be retiring from his service at the helm of Hecla. However, he will not be retiring away from Idaho. True to form, Art will remain rooted in his community and family of Idaho. I am proud of Art Brown, for the example he has set for business in the State of Idaho, for his contributions to his community, and for his family who has supported him in his endeavors over the years. On behalf of myself and so many others in the great State of Idaho, I wish him the best in his future endeavors and thank him for his service to Idaho.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Hugh Brady of Boise Idaho who will be inducted into the Idaho High School Activities Hall of Fame on August 6th, 2003. In 1954 Mr. Brady started working at Idaho Sporting Goods, and he has been dedicated to helping young people in Idaho participate in athletics ever since. Mr. Brady, who later became the owner of the sporting goods store, has sponsored Little League baseball teams, football teams, basketball teams, soccer teams, softball teams, and bowling teams. He also took the time to coach many teams over the years. Mr. Brady has demonstrated extraordinary support for athletics and the youth of Idaho. There have been numerous instances when a student could not afford the cost of equipment to participate in a sport and Mr. Brady made sure that they got it. Mr. Brady, you make Idaho proud! For the past 4 years, Mr. Brady has battled lung cancer. My wife, Susan, and I along with many Idahoans will keep him in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my good friend, Louis Carney and his wife LuJuanna. Just last week, the Carneys, who live near my family's home in Idaho Falls, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. I am honored to know them and pleased that I was asked to join the celebration. I can think of no better way to commemorate their 50 years together than to mention that they are the proud parents of eight children, six who are still with us--Don, Nancy, Bob, Terry, Kevin, and Kenneth; and two who have rejoined their Heavenly Father--Laurie Ann and Jean Marie; the even prouder grandparents of fifteen; and the great grandparents of one. It speaks very highly of their commitment to each other and their family that so many of their family members were on hand to mark the occasion. Louis has been a very good friend to me over the years, and I appreciate his wisdom and guidance on many matters. He has been a strong supporter of the Boy Scouts of America program, and I share his enthusiasm for this program which can be so important in helping young men to learn new skills and achieve goals. Louis and LuJuanna have been important members of our community. They are always available for those who are in need. They radiate happiness and contentment, and can be counted on by not only their friends, but so many others. I am proud to mark their anniversary, and even more pleased to call them friends.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to extend a heartfelt birthday greeting to Mr. Willard Eldredge who turns 80 years old today. On July 5, his friends and family will gather in Idaho Falls to honor this great man on the occasion of his birthday. Mr. Eldredge has touched many lives over the years, and I am one of the fortunate ones to have benefited from his influence. You see, I was involved in Boy Scouts, and eventually became an Eagle Scout. Mr. Eldredge was a Scout pack leader of mine many years ago. He taught me and other young men the values, work ethic, and commitment that it took to succeed in Scouts and in life. He served as a role model for me, and taught me lessons about honor, duty, honesty, and patriotism that I have carried with me throughout my life. It is now my honor to wish my former mentor a wonderful, and very happy 80th birthday.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation to Sharla Moffett Beall, my Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water Subcommittee staff director, as she returns to her home State of Oregon. Sharla has been an important member of my Senate staff. Her counsel and efforts will be missed. There is no one in the Senate more knowledgeable on Endangered Species Act issues; issues of real significance to Idaho and the Nation. She has been a tireless advocate for meaningful solutions to recover endangered and threatened salmon species in the Pacific Northwest. She has helped me to lead the fight against bad policies, such as the total maximum daily load rule proposed in 2000, and for good policies, like habitat conservation plans and streamlining of the consultation process. When I became chairman of the subcommittee, I had little doubt about who I wanted as staff director. I first worked with Sharla when she was professional staff for the House Agriculture Committee. I knew that in Sharla, I had someone experienced, professional, effective, and with a keen legislative sense. She also shared my political philosophy and passion for fish and wildlife issues. It has also been rewarding to see Sharla start a family during her time as staff director. In her first year on my staff, she married another Oregon native, Jim Beall; during the second year, they had her first child, Anna-Sophia; and just last year a second daughter, Alexandra-Skye, was born. They are a wonderful and loving family. The Senate has a tough time competing with two beautiful daughters. I will miss Sharla and her family. I wish them all the best, but I know this is not farewell. She will continue to be a valued friend and advisor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Madam President. I will be very brief. I want to reiterate, once again, we are not here dealing with a question of whether those who did try to and succeeded in manipulating markets should be held accountable for that. We are talking about what is the correct way to regulate the derivatives market in our country. I would like to read into the Record, once again, a portion of a letter which we have just received signed by the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, John W. Snow; Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; William H. Donaldson, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and James E. Newsome, Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. They write: Dear Senators Crapo and Miller: Thank you for your letter of June 10, 2003, requesting the views of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets on proposed Senate Amendment # 876 to S. 14, the pending energy bill. As this amendment is similar to a proposed amendment on which you sought the views of the PWG last year, we reassert the positions expressed in the PWG's response dated September 18, 2002, a copy of which is enclosed. The proposed amendment could have significant unintended consequences for an extremely important risk management market--serving businesses, financial institutions, and investors throughout the U.S. economy. For that reason, we believe that adoption of this amendment is ill-advised. And this next paragraph responds directly to the allegations that there is some manipulation in the market and there is a loophole there. They go on to say: We would also point out that, since we wrote that letter last year, various federal agencies have initiated actions against wrongdoing in energy markets. I do not have time to go through the list of wrongdoing they have initiated action against, but they conclude in their letter: These initial actions alone make clear that wrongdoers in the energy markets are fully subject to the existing enforcement authority of federal regulators. This amendment will not be helpful to our economy. It will take away one of the needed elements of our economy that gives it the dynamic nature that it has, to be able to resist some of the difficult burdens that the economy has faced in the last several years. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I just referred to dated June 11, 2003, and an additional letter dated September 18, 2002, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I encourage my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to address the Feinstein amendment dealing with derivatives. I think it is a very bad idea. It is one we debated last year and one which is dangerous to our economy. In order to understand, we have to go back 2 years. Several years ago, Congress wanted to know exactly how our country should approach the regulation of derivatives. As a result of that, and after a few years of study and debate in which a precise time was put together to evaluate the issue, that team came back with recommendations. Those recommendations were enacted by Congress in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This landmark legislation provided certainty with respect to the legal enforceability and regulatory status of swaps and other off-exchange derivatives--what we call over-the-counter derivatives--under the Commodity Exchange Act. The Feinstein amendment would undermine that certainty for OTC derivatives and would impose a new persuasive and unnecessary regulatory regime with respect to OTC derivatives based on energy or on other nonfinancial, nonagricultural commodities. This act gets complicated, but these commodities are called ``exempt commodities.'' The term is a little bit confusing because it creates the impression sometimes that these commodities are not regulated at all. They are covered fully by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and by the Commodity Exchange Act. The point is that they are not regulated in the same way that other securities are regulated. OTC derivatives, including those based on energy, are critical risk management tools. Congress, key financial regulators and others recognize that OTC derivatives are critical tools that are used by businesses, government, and others to manage the financial, commodity, credit and other risks inherent in their core economic activities with a degree of efficiency that would not otherwise be possible. It is important to state at the outset as we are discussing this issue that we are not talking about transactions that many people think of in securities where they think about investing in a stock in the stock market, a stock that may be regulated under our securities regulations system. These are not transactions that are engaged in by unsophisticated buyers or sellers. These are very sophisticated transactions. Those engaging in these transactions are sophisticated buyers and sellers. They are not the kinds of transactions most people think of when they think of investing in the stock market. OTC derivatives based on energy products are an especially important tool, allowing market participants to manage risk. In fact, last year when we had Alan Greenspan testify at the Banking Committee, I asked him directly about whether he believed the management of derivatives, the regulation of derivatives, was being properly handled today and whether there was any aspect of our approach to regulating derivatives that led to the Enron debacle or any of the other problems California faced. At that time, the answer I got from Mr. Greenspan was that he was not aware of any evidence that indicated the problems we faced in the Enron circumstance were as a result of our regulatory regime for derivatives, and also that it was his opinion the use of derivatives was a very important tool to help to allocate risk in our economy in such a manner that it helped us stabilize and strengthen our economy. In fact, he even went so far as to say he believed that one reason our economy had not dipped further as we faced a lot of the economic trials and tribulations we have faced in the last couple of years was because of our ability to utilize derivatives and to share and allocate risk in these complicated transactions. Today, for example, airlines use over-the-counter derivatives to manage their risks with respect to the price and availability of jet fuel. Energy-intensive companies such as aluminum producers use OTC derivatives to hedge their risks of change in the cost of electricity, and energy producers likewise use OTC derivatives to minimize the effects of price volatility. Again, I reiterate the point that these are complicated, sophisticated transactions being engaged in by very sophisticated participants in the market. A Wall Street Journal article dated March 10, 2003, entitled ``U.S. Airlines Show Disparity in Hedging for Jet-Fuel Costs,'' illustrated the impacts of using derivatives to hedge in the U.S. airline industry. The article noted that jet fuel, now more than twice as expensive; as a year ago, is emerging as a major factor in survival and bankruptcy for airlines, as several carriers, including some of the weakest, find themselves with few protective price hedges in place. In other words, these airlines did not effectively utilize the hedging tool, and now they are facing a doubling in the cost of their fuel prices against which they could have hedged. They could have spread that risk if they had used these hedging tools. Congress should avoid actions that unnecessarily deter the use or increase the cost of these risk management tools. Key financial regulators also oppose legislation such as this amendment. As I indicated earlier, Alan Greenspan indicated his opposition to increasing or changing the regulatory regime with regard to transactions in OTC derivatives. We are expecting anytime today to get a brandnew response from all of our financial regulators. But last year when this same debate was held, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, collectively known as the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, opposed the earlier versions of the amendment we debated. In a September 18, 2002, letter to Senators Crapo and Miller, these regulators highlighted the benefits of OTC derivative noting that ``the OTC derivatives markets in question have been a major contributor to our economy's ability to respond to the stresses and challenges of the last two years.'' The President's working group also observed ``while the derivatives markets may seem far removed from the interests and concerns of consumers, the efficiency gains that these markets have fostered are enormously important to the consumers and to our economy.'' They urged Congress to protect these markets' contributions to the economy and to be aware of the potential unintended consequences of legislative proposals to expand regulation of the OTC derivatives markets, and changing the President's working group proposals which we enacted into law in 2000. Federal Reserved Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee in March of last year that there was: a significant downside if we regulate [OTC derivatives based on energy] where we do not have to . . . because if we step in as government regulators, we will remove a considerable amount if the caution that is necessary to allow these markets to evolve. [W]hile it may appear sensible to go in and regulate, all of our experience is that there is a significant downside when you do not allow counterparty surveillance to function in an appropriate manner. The CFTC does not need new authority to address acts of manipulation that appear to have occurred in California. One of the arguments we often hear in favor of jumping in and increasing the regulatory scheme with regard to derivatives is that Enron destroyed the energy markets in California and if we had had a tough regulatory regime, that wouldn't have happened. The CFTC's recent enforcement action against Enron demonstrates that it has adequate tools under the CFMA to address situations such as those, which arose in California. The following enforcement actions have been brought forth by the CFTC this year: No. 1, CFTC charges Enron with price manipulation, operating an illegal, undesignated futures exchange and offering illegal lumber futures contracts through its internet trading platform; No. 2, energy trading company agrees to pay the CFTC $20 million to settle charges of attempted manipulation and false reporting; and No. 3, former natural gas trader charged criminally under the Commodity Exchange Act with intentionally reporting false natural gas price and volume information to energy reporting firms in an attempt to affect prices of natural gas contracts. The point here is, there is law in place prohibiting the kinds of things that happened in the Enron situation, and those laws are being enforced with criminal penalties being imposed. The fact they are already regulated is apparent. The fact that the acts that occurred in California are the subject of intense regulatory review and criminal enforcement conduct shows we do have regulatory protections in place. The fact there are bad actors who violate the law does not always mean we should necessarily increase the regulatory burdens we face in this country, that our economy deals with in this country. The CFTC's Division of Enforcement continues to work closely with other Federal law enforcement officers across the country on investigations of possible round-trip trading, false reporting, and fraud and manipulation by energy companies, their affiliates, their employees, or their agents. Again, the point is, there is no evidence that any aspect or lack of aspect in our regulatory regime for the regulation of derivatives had anything to do with the actions of Enron and the occurrences in California that caused such a difficult problem in their energy economy. There is no evidence that enactment of the CFMA, for example--the 2000 reforms, the modernization of our regulatory system--contributed to the collapse of Enron. Enron's collapse was caused by a failure of corporate governance and controls which, when it became public, led others to refuse to do business with them. As in the case of California, neither the CFTC nor any other key financial regulators has suggested more restrictive regulation of derivatives or derivatives dealers would have prevented the fall of Enron or is needed to prevent future similar events in the future. The Feinstein amendment would cause more problems than it would cure. This amendment, among other items, would create jurisdictional confusion between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It would impose problematic capital requirements to facilities trading in the OTC energy derivatives markets. It would require futures-like reporting and recordkeeping requirements. It would create both legal and regulatory uncertainty for brokered trading in OTC energy derivatives, as well as OTC derivatives based on other nonfinancial, nonagricultural commodities. It would subject to new regulation a broad range of market participants that have not traditionally been subject to the more intensive CFTC regulation. It would allow the CFTC to regulate any exempt commodity transaction and presumably any market participant that engages in such a transaction in a dealer market. Again, I repeat, these are sophisticated transactions between sophisticated actors in these markets. This proposal would create the very sort of uncertainty that Congress and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have worked for more than a decade to avoid. This amendment, in my opinion, is a solution in search of a problem. Since the collapse of Enron and the actions of some market participants to improperly exploit the weaknesses in the California energy price deregulation scheme, remedial actions have occurred on all fronts. The CFTC, the FERC, and others have initiated civil and criminal actions. The Financial Accounting Standards Board has aggressively pursued necessary changes in accounting rules, and private-sector groups have developed and implemented ``best practices'' rules and improved the techniques of managing credit and other risks in the OTC energy derivatives transactions. The lessons of Enron and of California have been learned. The misdeeds and regulatory violations involving Enron and California have challenged regulators under the existing regulatory structure. Law enforcement agencies and private litigants are dealing with it under the existing regulatory structure. The energy markets are beginning to rebound, and they are becoming less volatile, notwithstanding the current uncertain economy. As a result and because of all this, the Feinstein amendment is little more than a solution in search of a problem, but for reasons I have already mentioned, it is a solution that is dangerous and unnecessary and will put more rigidity into our economy at a time when we need the flexibility and the resilience that will make our economy more dynamic in these difficult times. Mr. President, there are a lot of other aspects of this debate we need to review before we vote on this amendment. I am hopeful by the end of the day we are going to be in a position where we can, as a Senate, deal with this amendment, as we dealt with it last year, by rejecting it and telling our energy derivatives markets, and all of our OTC derivatives markets, that the current modernized regulatory structure we put into place in 2000, as we follow the President's working group recommendations as to how to deal with these issues, will be maintained and will not be changed, and they can continue to utilize these important financial tools to keep our economy strong and dynamic. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to those members of the Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Countless women and men have answered the call of our country to preserve and protect our freedom against those individuals and regimes that would seek to compromise or destroy our way of life. Reservists have left civilian lives behind, parting with wives, husbands, parents, children, and friends in order to fulfill their commitment to our country's defense. Active Duty military members have gone from merely conducting exercises mimicking war, to leaving their homes and families to engage in the real thing, on foreign soil, thousands of emotional and physical miles from familiarity and comfort. These brave soldiers, airman, marines, and sailors do their jobs in a place where injury and death lie in wait at every turn. The next rise in the gritty, windblown landscape may hide 160 pounds of profound desperation peering from behind the barrel of a gun. The building around the corner needing to be secured might be rigged with enough explosives to make a small child's father or mother nothing but a memory. floating just beneath the roiling surface of the water, there might be a mine, with deadly patience waiting for the next ship to pass overhead so that it can accomplish its gruesome mission. These are some of the hazards our military members face in their jobs. Frankly, it makes our job in these marble halls seem significantly less perilous. I speak today to recognize in particular those faithful men and women from my State--Idaho. We have had approximately 450 reservists and active-duty members called to serve in the war. That may not seem like a large number compared to those from some other States, but proportionately it represents a significant percentage of Idahoans. We also have countless other soldiers who have family and friends who call Idaho home. This number does not include the over 160 who were activated to fill positions vacated at installations here by deployed personnel. We also have Idahoans continuing to serve in Operation Enduring Freedom, and in the fight against terrorism. I have spoken before of MAJ Gregory Stone and CPL Richard P. Carl, both soldiers from Idaho who lost their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I now ask for a moment of silent prayer and reflection from my fellow Senators as we consider what their dying, as well as over 150 other men and women who have met the same fate in this conflict, has accomplished for our personal freedom. Thankfully, many of those who were called to military service from Idaho have just recently returned safely home. Yet their experiences overseas will remain with them for the rest of their lives. Some may remember lines of tanks rolling ominously forward under a dusty sky, marred by waves of heat emanating from the desert floor. That memory may be infused with the pungent odor of layers of sweat and grime under desert camies, mingled with the acrid odor of burning gasoline and oil. Others may remember pulling the trigger on their weapon and seeing death for the first time in their young life. They may remember being close enough to smell it and feel it, or feel as if their own was but a whisper away. Still more may remember the sight of crowds, pushing against one another, some greeting the American soldiers with cheers of gratitude, some screaming epithets, some shamelessly begging for food and water to feed themselves or their starving families, and others simply greeting this modern army in grim, expressionless silence brought on by years of brutal repression and loss. The smell of desperate, poverty-stricken humanity, and the sounds of raw emotion cascading forth in an uninhibited tidal wave after a lifetime of unchecked tyranny, may remain forever embedded in the memories of many of those soldiers. Finally, and very tragically, some will never forget a life that slipped away while they clutched a friend's bleeding body to their chest in shared agony. I give account of these images to remind us of the grim reality of war, and the tremendous sacrifice that these noble women and men have made so that we can continue to live in glorious freedom. We tend to take for granted, at times, the price that is paid for this amazing gift. The cost comes not only in the loss of life, but the loss of innocence. The cost is borne by family members as well, and by those, whom never having set foot outside this country, bear the scars of a father, mother, husband, wife, son or daughter forever gone from this life. This body voted to support a decision to send these men and women into harm's way. Lest the proud soldiers from Idaho, and their persevering families, think that I came to that decision lightly, I stand now before you and recognize their tremendous bravery in the face of danger, their courage in the face of death, and their unequivocal commitment to preserving the ideals of liberty and democracy. I want to convey no doubt that their decision to become a member of the most well-trained, professional military in the world places them in my highest esteem. With gravity and sincerity, I thank them and I honor them. They have given me, my wife, and most importantly, my children, and yours as well, the priceless gift of freedom.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to mark a sad occasion that is underway in my home State of Idaho. We are burying one of our soldiers who was killed during the war in Iraq, and I wanted to take a few moments to share my thoughts with you about SGT Richard Carl. While I was not privileged to know him personally during his short 26 years, he has come alive for me through the memories that you have shared in the past few days. He is remembered as a son to Richard and Karen, a husband to Audrey, a father to 3-year-old Ealy Ann and 18-month-old Dominick, and a friend to many, many others. It is a weighty job--the one we, as a nation, ask of people like Sergeant Carl. It brings uncertainty and sacrifice, not just for the troops, but for their families and loved ones. But our Nation is built on the foundations laid by good people like Sergeant Carl, and it is through their sacrifice, that their children and our children will inherit a free nation. Such lofty language pales against the stark reality that confronts us today at this service. In the last few days, news articles have brought a quiet, brave family man to the attention of many Idahoans. I have been touched by the memories of good deeds, unheralded kindness, and a good heart. One memory frequently mentioned was that he was always helping someone else, and that is a remarkable legacy to leave. In his duty to his country, he died helping someone else--in this case, an injured Iraqi child who needed to be taken to a hospital. We cannot find the words to express the full extent of the debt that we owe to Sergeant Carl and so many other young men and women who have served our country to the fullest measure. In his wife Audrey's words, ``Our family is dealing with this loss as well as can be expected. Richard was a good man, and while he was not known to the world, he played an important role. We are so proud of his contributions to our nation and his role in making the world a better place. He will never be forgotten.'' We are honored to have him remembered as an Idahoan. We are blessed to have had him here, even for the short time, and I am confident that those who knew him will make certain that his children have the opportunity to know their father through those memories. Sergeant Carl and so many others who have sacrificed for our freedoms will continue in my thoughts and prayers and in our Nation's grateful hearts. national former prisoner of war recognition day

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the importance of U.S. relations with Taiwan. Most Americans have been focused on the two media showpiece events in recent weeks--the conflict in Iraq and the SARS pandemic. I would note to the Senate that our relations with Taiwan--a key strategic ally for the United States and a critical regional trading partner--should not be overlooked. In addition to its strategic role with the U.S., Taiwan has a strong market-based economy and burgeoning multi-party democratic system. It has helped lead the modernization of Southeast Asia by demonstrating the importance of respecting civil liberties and the rule of law. A component of U.S. efforts to ensure regional stability is to maintain strong relations with Taiwan, including assurances to protect the island against military attacks. To support this effort, the U.S. has a tradition of providing military assistance to Taiwan for the purpose of its self-defense. In recent years, this assistance has primarily been in the form of sales of aircraft and advanced warning radars to the Taiwanese government. Most recently, the Bush administration announced it would sell Taiwan a new assortment of defense articles, including diesel submarines, P-3C anti-submarine aircraft, and Kidd-class destroyers. I support this decision because it recognizes the legitimate self-defense requirements of Taiwan, but does not destabilize the sensitive relations between Taipei and Beijing. The Key to ensuring peace and stability in the region is to promote healthy U.S. relations with Taiwan and support efforts to encourage the People's Republic of China and Taiwan to resolve their differences peacefully. We should continue to pursue a means of supporting Taiwan without harming U.S. interests in China.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Maybe 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the conference report. I think it is important we put into perspective the debate we are having today. You heard a lot of talk, if you listened to this debate, about the potential danger of tax relief at a time like this in our economy. You heard a lot of talk about skyrocketing deficits and what is the responsibility or the cause of those deficits, and the circumstances around which this budget has been brought to the floor. I wish to step back a bit and look at my personal experience in Congress as an example of what it is we are really looking at, what the perspective is with regard to this debate. I ran for Congress in 1993. At that time, we had massive deficits, in the neighborhood of $200 billion, $300 billion, $400 billion, $500 billion, and had been having those deficits for years. I ran on a balanced budget platform. I argued for a lot of other issues, but one of the main issues I talked about was the need to balance our Federal budget. I got elected, got here to Washington, and have been involved in a debate over a budget each year since I served in Congress. Now I am in my 11th year. In each year, what happens is, whoever is the leadership in Congress proposes a budget. The budget can be a 5-year budget, which is what we used to have, or a 10-year budget, such as the one before us. The important point to note about all these budgets is the year that counts, particularly with regard to spending, is the first year of the budget. Yes, we are here talking about a 10-year budget, but next year we will be back in front of the Congress with a new budget, and the first year of that new budget will not necessarily be the same year, the same as the second year of this year's budget. In other words, we do not just adopt this 10-year budget and then go on from there and live with the budget constraints contained in each of those 10 years. We do a new budget every year. So what really counts is the first year of the budget. It is important for people listening to this debate to understand that dynamic in order to understand what is really being said by those who are arguing about what should be the policy of this budget. It is true that with regard to tax relief, once tax relief is adopted, it is permanent until a Congress changes it, and it plays out for a period of years. But it is the spending side of the budget that gets changed, especially the discretionary spending side of the budget that gets changed and redone by Congress every year. You have to look very carefully at the spending proposal. What happens, frankly, is that those who want to see more Federal spending, those who want to see our economy basically nationalized, with the Federal Government controlling ever-increasing aspects of the economy and spending ever-increasing dollars, frontload the spending into that first year of the budget. Then they have very prudent spending patterns in the second through the tenth year of the budget or the second through the fifth year of the budget, knowing they can come back next year with a new first year and change the whole spending dynamic. The debate we are in right now is just another aspect of the traditional debate we have been having in Washington for the last couple of decades between those who do not want to see tax relief and those who want to see tax relief, and between those who want to see the Federal spending increase versus those who want to hold spending down. We have heard a lot of talk, as I have said, about budgets and deficits. There has been a lot of accusation made about who caused the deficit that we face. President Bush, as you know, when he first became President proposed major tax relief which this Congress adopted. It was adopted for a 10-year timespan and will expire at the end of 10 years from the day it was adopted in 2001, if it is not continued. That tax relief has provided needed relief to the American people. That tax relief is today being attacked on this floor as a cause of the budget deficits when, in reality, I think most Americans are very well aware we have had dramatic increases in spending required by the attack on 9/11 by terrorists against our Nation and the significant increases in spending on homeland security, by the war in Iraq, and the increased spending for our national security that has been driven by the need to make sure we have the strongest military we can to protect and preserve our Nation against terrorists and rogue nations overseas. We have seen spending increases in other categories that have been far beyond the growth of the economy. In the categories discussed by Senators on this floor today--education, health care, the environment-- spending has gone through the roof for very good reasons: the defense of the war on terrorism, the defense of our homelands, the defense of our Nation. Nevertheless, spending has skyrocketed at the same time the economy has collapsed. So we see revenue going down at a time when spending is going up. That is what is causing these deficits. It was not President Bush's tax relief. We can argue about whether giving tax relief is going to actually in a dynamic economy strengthen revenues or reduce revenues, and I would like to talk about that a little bit in a minute. The fact is, wherever one comes down on that debate, the true core of the causes of the deficits we are dealing with right now was not the tax relief; it was the increases in spending and the collapse of the economy we have seen not only in the United States but across this globe. There has been a lot of talk about the fact we really have an obsession with tax cuts. There is definitely a strong commitment on the part of many of us to obtain tax relief because we believe strongly that it is through proper management of the tax collection side of our budget that we will provide the economic stimulus to our Nation that is needed. But if there is an obsession on the one side for tax relief, then it must also be said there is an obsession on the other side with spending. Those very Senators who stand on the floor and talk about the fact we cannot support increased tax relief, we cannot have more tax relief, are the very same ones who when we debated this budget in the Senate they proposed over 80 amendments. There were over 80 amendments that we dealt with. If we tally up the increased spending that was proposed in the bevy of amendments when we considered this budget, it was almost an additional trillion dollars of spending that was proposed. This budget is a lean budget, but it is one that meets the needs of this Nation in the critical areas that we must address. Again, we are having that age-old battle between whether we should keep taxes low and, in fact, even reduce them further or whether we should keep taxes high and stop tax cuts from being made and allow previous tax relief to expire and thereby let taxes go up so we can sustain higher levels of Federal spending in the budget. That is what this debate is about. If we do nothing, if we let the current law stay as it is and have no tax relief and have no additional spending, we will still see deficits in the neighborhood of $200 billion in the budget year 2004 we are working on. So, again, I think it is important to set the parameters. If we look at the proposals of the one side who are now objecting to the President's tax relief, they also have a stimulus package. Their stimulus package, however, does not contain so much tax relief. It contains mostly spending, on the theory, apparently, that we can spend ourselves into prosperity by having the Federal Government put a massive focus on spending to strengthen our economy. We simply disagree with that. Notably, the spending in this stimulus package is frontloaded. Recall what I talked about with regard to how these budgets work. It is the first year of the budget that we really have to focus on on the spending side, and the frontloaded spending in the alternative stimulus package that is proposed results in a deficit, if it were to be adopted, that is even higher than the deficit that is contained with the President's tax relief proposal in this budget. According to the analysis, the deficit would be $382 billion, but it would not be because of tax relief. It would be because of spending. That is the key difference, again, in the debate we are having today. There has been some discussion about the fact that we did not get a budget last year, and why we did not get a budget. The Senator from North Dakota asked some of us who voted against what he calls a 2-year budget that was proposed last year, why we voted against it. Well, I will tell my colleagues, it was the same old debate. That proposal, though it was not actually a full-blown budget, was one which extended the caps and it extended the point of order for the budget points of order that we need as protection in this budget and had some increased spending in some categories. The spending proposals were, once again, too high. They were far beyond what the President had proposed in his budget that was focused on building a path back toward balance. The reason we voted against it was because we did not believe in the spending levels they had proposed. With regard to those important budget protections, the extended caps on the budget and the budget points of order and the like, we did later on adopt those and extend them into April of this year. It is those spending caps and budget points of order that this budget now proposes to put back into place. There has also been some talk about whether the manner in which this budget is being brought forth with the reconciliation instructions, being different between the House and the Senate, is proper. Frankly, I have looked at it. As I see it, it is very straightforward. The reconciliation instructions provide for $550 billion of tax relief over the next 10 years. With regard to that proposed tax relief, it is very clear that with the current support in opposition to that proposal, the Senate cannot pass that kind of tax relief. So it is proposed in this budget reconciliation that the Senate committee cannot exceed $350 billion, as the Senate committee puts together the tax package contemplated by this budget, and the House committee cannot exceed the $550 billion. The reconciliation between those two numbers will occur when the tax committee in the House and the tax committee in the Senate write the actual detailed tax language and they seek, if those bills are passed, to conference those bills. It is a very normal and standard approach, in my opinion, of bringing together the differences between the House and the Senate, letting that debate be resolved at a time when the House and the Senate have put the details to the tax packages. As has been said many times, what we are adopting today is a budget. It creates a number for tax relief. It does not say what kind of tax relief will occur. There are proposals and I am going to talk about those proposals, but the budget that we are talking about allows the House and the Senate tax committees to write their own proposals. We do not know what they are likely to adopt--well, let me say we think we know what they are likely to focus on, but we do not know the details of how they will adopt it. I will talk about the tax relief argument for a minute. It has been said again today, multiple times, that we are talking about tax relief for the wealthy. As I said, I have served in Congress now for over 10 years, and during each of those 10 years--the 6 years I served in the House and going on 5 years I have now served in the Senate--we have had debates over tax relief. We have had tax relief proposals of all different kinds, everything from proposals to reduce the income tax rates to proposals to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to proposals for child tax credits, and so forth. Every single time that a proposal for tax relief has been made, since I have served in this Congress, it has been attacked as tax relief for the wealthy. Even the proposal to eliminate the marriage tax penalty was attacked as tax cuts for the wealthy. Why? Because that is something that seems to work when people do not look at the details behind what kinds of tax relief are being proposed. Well, what kind of tax relief is being proposed by the President? First, he is proposing that we accelerate the tax cuts that were put into place in 2001. That includes expansion of the 10-percent bracket, hardly a tax cut on the wealthy; acceleration of the 2006 rate schedule; acceleration of the 15-percent bracket; and an increase in the standard deduction for married filing jointly, hardly tax cuts for the wealthy; acceleration of the child credit increase, hardly tax relief for the wealthy; an increase in the AMT exemption amount. There is one where people from all different categories could get caught up in it but particularly I hear about this one from small business owners. I certainly hope all small business owners in America and others are not considered to be wealthy simply because they own their own business. It also includes an increase in the expensing options for small businesses and other businesses, all businesses. Mr. President, I have just been notified I can now make a unanimous consent request, and I will do so.