Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I understand there now is a copy of the amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I will call it up for its consideration. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this amendment will strike section 132 from the farm bill and replace it with a study of the impact of our Federal dairy policy on producers and consumers. I am proud to be joined by Senators Bingaman, Domenici, Brownback, Craig, and Voinovich. There will probably be others before we are finished with the debate. There has been a lot of national attention provided to the issue of national dairy policy. As the provisions in the farm bill in the Senate dealing with dairy were first proposed, there was a very strong outcry across the country, which I supported. It is my understanding the proposals have been modified somewhat. What we first started out with was a proposal that would have increased the costs to our consumers, increased the costs--reduced the price to our farmers or our producers and created a national subsidy program for milk in the middle. This would have resulted in our school lunch program, for example, paying millions more dollars nationwide, our Food Stamp Program paying millions of more dollars nationwide, and a reduction of the consumption of milk because of the increased price of milk that this new national dairy program would have required. It has been modified somewhat but still achieves the same types of negative results in the managers' amendment that has been proposed as a substitute for the bill that is now on the floor. It is an ill- conceived attempt to create a national dairy program that is unfair, is unwanted, and untested. This proposal is opposed by milk producer organizations that represent over 90 percent of the milk produced in this country. It is opposed by groups with an interest in our milk policy. And, it is opposed by taxpayer organizations. The proposal we have before us today is the third iteration we have seen since it was first sprung upon us before the committee mark-up. While this version is a vast improvement over the milk tax created in S. 1628 and in the filed bill, it is still bad dairy policy and still harmful to the majority of dairy producers. This proposal takes a relatively healthy domestic industry and forces $2 billion in government spending that will reduce overall farm income. That's right. This will reduce income. The proposal creates artificial incentive to increase production. The law of supply and demand dictates the surplus milk will reduce the price paid to dairy farmers. For example: payments to milk producers could amount to more than $500 million per year, or the equivalent of a U.S. average price incentive of nearly 3 percent. Such a production incentive could lead to an increase in milk production of nearly 1 billion pounds of milk and a market price decline of 20 cents per hundredweight. If you have a dairy farm larger than the cap, which is most of the West and major producers in every State, you lose money. The price of milk goes down, and that subsidy, which this proposal in the farm bill now intends to make up the difference to farmers, only goes so far. So those who do not benefit from the new subsidy are going to lose income. The special treatment in this bill for the Northeast is also going to have an additional effect on milk across the country. This proposal contains specific and special provisions for the Northeastern States. The 12 Northeastern States identified in this proposal, which account for 18 percent of milk production, will receive 25 percent of the proposed benefits. So, the percentage increase in production in the 12 states is likely to be greater than the rest of the Nation. The market prices in the rest of the Nation would reflect a disproportionate reduction due to the higher payments paid to northeast producers. In effect, a taxpayer subsidy to the Northeast is going to result in an increase in the production of milk to the detriment of dairy farmers around the rest of the country. What's more, this $2 billion government outlay is just for the payments. It does not take into account the cost to the government when it has to purchase surplus milk products. Nonfat dry milk is currently being bought under the price support program, which helps to support class IV milk prices--butter and nonfat dry milk. USDA purchased over 20 million pounds of nonfat dry milk last week, bringing USDA uncommitted inventories to 655 million pounds, nearly a year's worth of U.S. production and far more than USDA can distribute over the next several years. The increased supply and decreased prices will lead to more government purchases and more cost to the taxpayer. I also ask my colleagues what they expect to happen when the $2 billion is expended. We will have pushed market prices down and producers will actually need these payments in the future. We will have made our producers dependent on Federal payments, leading to more payments in the future. We will have created a dependency, making our producers dependent on Federal payments, leading to more payments in the future and increased debates in these Halls of Congress about whether we can continue a subsidy program which we didn't need to establish in the first place. What is the goal of this proposal? Supposedly it is to prevent the demise of small dairy farms. Is there anyone who thinks producers will not make investments to produce the maximum amount they can get subsidized to produce? What will this do to the small dairy producers who can't afford to make those investments? The subsidy programs in this bill--which I understand is to encourage production of up to 400 cows per farm--will end up in a Federal subsidy program stimulating the overproduction of milk in those areas and stimulating the increased size of dairy farms. I urge my colleagues to vote with me to strike this provision. This is bad policy for the farms, it will be bad for the dairy industry, and it is bad policy for the country. Congress should favor policies that encourage growth and innovation in the industry, and not endorse plans that replace market paychecks with government subsidies. The study called for in my amendment will help us determine what those good policies should be. As I indicated, by striking section 182 of the farm bill, we are proposing to replace it with a study. There has been a tremendous amount of debate over the past few years--in fact, over a number the past years--about what the proper milk policy in this country should be and what the impact on producers, processors, and those who consume the milk will be from different farm policies. Although I am confident that the proposal to create a new Federal subsidy program and then impose floor prices in some parts of the country is not the right kind of farm policy, I also believe a study by Congress is necessary to help us get the actual data before us to make these critical decisions. Let me explain for just a moment who in this country opposes this program. Again, as I indicated previously, dairy producers across this country representing over 90 percent of the dairy production oppose this new dairy proposal. Let me go through a little more specifically who opposes this proposal. It is opposed by the National Milk Producers Federation, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Alliance of Western Milk Producers, Southeast Dairy Farmers Association, Western United Dairymen, Milk Producers Council of California, and the Dairy Producers of New Mexico, Idaho, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Montana. It is opposed by the retailer processors and consumer food groups, including the American Frozen Food Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Chocolate Manufacturers Association, Council for Citizens Against Governmental Waste, Food Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Independent Bakers Association, International Dairy Foods Association, National Confectioners Association, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Food Processors Association, National Grocers Association, National Restaurant Association, and the National Taxpayers Union. I went through that list to show the broad array of different kinds of groups that oppose this new proposal for a national dairy policy. If you listened carefully, you will notice that there are groups in there whose dedicated purpose is to protect the American taxpayers, such as the National Taxpayers Union or Citizens Against Governmental Waste. There are groups in there that utilize milk and the milk processing industry, such as the chocolate manufacturers or grocery stores or retailers and restaurant associations. There are groups in there that produce the milk and many milk organizations that were identified. Whether one is on the production side or whether one is on the consumer side or the marketing side, it is recognized very broadly across this Nation that this new proposal to create a Federal subsidy program for dairy is not a wise direction for our dairy policy. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment to strike this provision from the farm bill.

Mr. CRAPO. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. If the Senator will yield, I am aware of at least one other Senator who is trying to come to the floor who wants to say something. May we wait for a few minutes to see if he arrives?

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, today what we are being asked to do is adopt a massive new subsidy program in the dairy industry in the United States that will distort the price of milk, promote overproduction, and eventually cause dynamics in the economics of the dairy industry that will work to the detriment of dairy farmers nationwide. I encourage everyone who comes to vote in a few minutes, when the vote will be called, to support the effort to strike section 132 from the farm bill and to oppose the motion to table. I conclude by simply reading from correspondence we have received from the National Milk Producers Federation, which has already been made a part of the Record by the Senator from New Mexico. It clearly states what this entire debate is about. They said they have established the following principles to help assess whether a new dairy program meets the needs of the dairy community in America and of the economy that we want to promote in the United States. They state the program ``must be national in scope. It must not discriminate between States and regions. It must not discriminate between farmers by limiting payments based on herd size. It must not cause competitive disadvantages or advantages between dairy farmers. It should not increase production [in America] to the point where overproduction eventually erodes the farm gate prices.'' The provisions currently in the farm bill do not meet any of those objectives. The current provisions in the farm bill, in fact, create a managed economy for the dairy industry, establishing a floor price which is far above the market price in one region of the country, which will increase overproduction and promote a new subsidy program that benefits that region of the country much more than other regions of the country, to the detriment of farms in the other parts of the country. It is unfair to dairy producers nationwide. It is unfair to the consumers. We should strike these provisions from the farm bill.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a very special group of educators in my home State of Idaho. Last month, sixty-six teachers received a National Board Certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, the highest professional credential in the field of teaching. With the addition of these individuals, there are now 272 National Board Certified Teachers in Idaho. High-quality teachers are the most important assets to any educational system. In order to gain a National Board Certification, these teachers voluntarily, often at great personal expense and sacrifice, submit to a nearly yearlong performance-based assessment. They must demonstrate their mastery in several areas including: Knowledge of subject matter; ability to effectively teach their subjects to students; and ability to manage and measure student learning. In fact, the State of Idaho recognizes teachers who gain a National Board Certification as ``master teachers.'' I commend these educators for the dedication and sacrifice it takes to successfully complete this program. Not only do they benefit in their teaching techniques, but Idaho's school children benefit through their dedication. Each one of these teachers has touched countless lives of students. They have been diligent in the trust that has been given to them by parents throughout Idaho. It is appropriate that we honor them today and recognize how hard they have worked to achieve this certification. Sometimes these types of recognitions are only hung on walls, and that rarely provides the public acknowledgement of the achievement. For this reason, I wanted to rise today and share with the U.S. Senate how important this achievement is to the education of young Idahoans. I ask that the names of the sixty-six Idahoans newly named as National Board Certified Teachers be printed in the Record following my statement. The names follow: Susan Alt, Boise, ID, Independent School District of Boise City, Early Childhood/Generalist. Carleen Baldwin, Lapwai, ID, Lapwai, Middle Childhood/ Generalist. Arlene Balls, Soda Springs, ID, Soda Springs District 150, Early Adolescence/Science. Devon Barker, Nezperce, ID, Nezperce Jt School District No. 302, Middle Childhood/Generalist. Leslie Rae Bedke, Sugar City, ID, Sugar Salem School District 322, Early Adolescence/English Language Arts. Marta Bidondo, Boise, ID, Meridian School District No. 2, Early Adolescence/Generalist. Leah Bug-Townsend, Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls School District 91, Early Adolescence/Social Studies-History. Khrista Buschhorn, Aberdeen, ID, Aberdeen V, Early and Middle Childhood/English as a New Language. William Dean, Post Falls, ID, Post Falls School District 273, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. Lisa Dreadfulwater, Nezperce, ID, Nezperce 302, Early Childhood/Generalist. Julie Elliott, Tampa, ID, Nampa 131, Middle Childhood/ Generalist. Anne Marie Elmore, Bellevue, ID, Blaine County, Early Childhood/Generalist. Joanna Ferris, Inkom, ID, Marsh Valley School District No. 21, Early Childhood/Generalist. Paula Fisher, Boise, ID, Meridian Joint School District No. 2 Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. Elaine Forsnes, Rexburg, ID, Madison 321, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Mathematics. Victoria Francis, Boise, ID, Independent School District of Boise, Early Adolescence through Young Adulthood/Career and Technical Education. Janet Greer, Eagle, ID, Meridian School District, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. Victor Haight, Meridian, ID, Meridian School District, Early Adolescence through Young Adulthood/Art. Connie Hawker, Pocatello, ID, School District 25, Early Childhood/Generalist. Esther Kaye Henry, Rigby, ID, Joint School District No. 251, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. Nick Hoffman, Wallace, ID, Wallace 393, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Science. Katholyn Howell, Shelley, ID, Shelley School District 60, Middle Childhood/Generalist. Susan Hufford, Boise, ID, Meridian School District, Early Adolescence/English Language Arts. Laurel Jensen, Montpelier, ID, Bear Lake, Middle Childhood/ Generalist. Mari Knutson, Caldwell, ID, Caldwell School District 132, Middle Childhood/Generalist. Christine Lawrence, Meridian, ID, Joint District 2, Meridian Idaho, Middle Childhood/Generalist. Marietta Leitch, Nezperce, ID, Nezperce Joint School District No. 302, Early Childhood/Generalist. Kim Lickley, Jerome, ID, Joint Jerome, Early Childhood/ Generalist. Eric Louis, Coeur D'alene, ID, Coeur D'alene 271, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. Denise Diane Martell, Idaho Falls ID, Idaho Falls 91, Early Childhood through Young Adulthood/Exceptional Needs Specialist. Kristine Martin, Aberdeen, ID, Aberdeen, Middle Childhood/ Generalist. Terri Meyer, Potlatch, ID, Potlatch School District No. 285, Early Adolescence through Young Adulthood/Career and Technical Education. Michelle Moore, Pocatello, ID, Pocatello School District 25, Early Childhood/Generalist. Mary Morrisey, Boise, ID, Boise School District, Early Adolescence/English language Arts. Jacklyn Mosman, Nezperce, ID, Nezperce Joint School District No. 302, Middle Childhood/Generalist. Carol Ohrtman, Lewiston, ID, Independent School District No. 1, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. Maren Oppelt, Rupert, ID, Minidoka County, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. Catherine Pierce, St. Maries, ID, Joint Distr Ct 41, St. Maries, Early Childhood/Generalist. Susan Pliler, Boise, ID, Independent School District of Boise City, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. B. Potter, Potlatch, ID, Potlatch School District #285, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. Lani Rembelski, Montpelier, ID, Bear Lake School 33, Early Childhood/Generalist. Stan Richter, Jerome, ID, Jerome, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Science. Vikki Ricks, Rigby, ID, Jefferson 251, Middle Childhood/ Generalist. Douglas Rotz, Grand View, ID, Bruneau Grant View Joint 365, Middle Childhood/Generalist. Laurie Sadler Rich, Paris, ID, Bear Lake School District 33, Early Childhood through Young Adulthood/Exceptional Needs Specialist. Patrick Schmidt, Lewiston, ID, Lewiston Independent 1, Early Adolescence through Young Adulthood/Career and Technical Education. Allan Schneider, Emmett, ID, Emmett School District 221, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. Thomas Seifert, Boise, ID, Meridian District, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Social Studies-History. Mary Sorger, ID, Boise, Middle Childhood/Generalist. Julie Stafford, Moscow, ID, Moscow School District 281, Early Adolescence through Young Adulthood/Career and Technical Education. Lois Standley, Bellevue, ID, Blain County School District No. 61, Early Childhood/Generalist. Angela Stevens, Inkom, ID, Marsh Valley, Early Childhood/ Generalist. Lorraine Stewart, Shelley, ID, Joint School District No. 60, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Social Studies-History. Tammi Taylor Utter, Idaho Falls, ID, Idaho Falls School District 91, Middle Childhood/Generalist. Portia Toobian-Bailey, Kamiah, ID, Kamiah Joint School District 304, Middle Childhood/Generalist. Cheryl Tousley, Kooskia, ID, School District 241, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/English Language Arts. Katherine Uhrig, Twin Falls, ID, Twin Falls, Middle Childhood/Generalist. April Weber, Troy, ID, Whitepine School District 286, Early Adolescence/Social Studies-History. Lynn Wessels, Nezperce, ID, Nezperce Joint School District No. 302, Early Childhood/Generalist. Marlys Westra, Nampa, ID, Vallivue, Early Childhood/ Generalist. Dena Jill Whitesell, Twin Falls, ID, Twin Falls 411, Early Adolescence/English Language Arts. Donna Wommack, Genesee, ID, Genesee Joint School District No. 282, Early Childhood/Generalist. Norie Wyatt, Post Falls, ID, Post Falls, Early Childhood/ Generalist. Mary Yamamoto, Caldwell, ID, Caldwell, Middle Childhood/ Generalist. Pamala Young, Decio, ID, Cassia Joint 151, Adolescence and Young Adulthood/Social Studies History.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President. I am pleased that we are proceeding on the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act. This important legislation will modernize the retirement system by giving rail employers and employees more responsibility and accountability for a private pension plan. Moreover, the bill permits the reduction of payroll taxes and improves benefits for widows and widowers. The overwhelmingly success of today's vote, which transcended party lines and ideological persuasions, shows what can be accomplished when all parties work together. This was a victory for the workers in the yard, all the railroads and especially for the survivors of retirees. I am hopeful that we can build on today's momentum. This is a smart bill with bipartisan support. The consensus is that it makes sense to modernize the railroad retirement system in a way that increases benefits for railroad retirees and their families.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 220, S. 1459.

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

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I join Senator Craig in acknowledging Chairman Kohl's and Senator Cochran's hard work on this bill and in expressing my deep concerns for the farmers of southern Idaho. Senator Craig has provided a good background on the issue and the problem. I will only add that while the final impact of the OUST contamination is unknown, we do know many Idaho producers will be affected. With the difficulties agriculture is already facing, high input costs, low product prices, and a shortage of water, the losses due to this contamination could be devastating. Credible scientific data is being established to measure the extent of the damage. I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues to address the needs of southern Idaho farmers.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today in sadness over the first announced American casualty in Operation Enduring Freedom. Master Sergeant Evander Earl Andrews, who was stationed in my home State of Idaho at the Mountain Home Air Force Base, was killed in service to his country in the Arabian Peninsula. He was part of the 366th Civil Engineer Squadron stationed there. Although Master Sergeant Andrews was originally from a small town in Maine, Idaho feels this loss along with the rest of the Nation. Master Sergeant Andrews went to the Middle East to fight for our freedom with valor and courage in this time of national crisis and made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of his country. There are no words for such an incredible loss, but we are a great Nation because of brave men and women like Master Sgt. Andrews. Flags are flying all over our country now, a visible display of the support our military troops and our President have over Operation Enduring Freedom. With the news of the first American casualty, it becomes even more evident that American lives will be lost in this fight against terrorism. Our hearts and prayers are not only with the family of Master Sergeant Andrews in Idaho and Maine, but also with the families of all our military troops, who are serving their country so far away, This will be a long war, one that will be won over a period of months or years through several strategic actions; there is no one operation that will rid the world of the evils of terrorism. But one thing is certain: freedom will prevail and we will not forget Master Sergeant Andrews and others like him to whom we owe our liberties.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the students and faculty at three exemplary elementary schools in the great State of Idaho--Oakley Elementary in Oakley, Ucon Elementary in Idaho Falls, and Oakwood Elementary in Preston. The students' demonstrated excellence in physical fitness has earned them recognition by the President of the United States for their efforts to improve their physical well-being and raise awareness for this important issue. Obesity among American youth has doubled in the past 10 years, and not only is this unhealthy by itself but can also lead to other physical ailments later in life, such as high blood pressure, type two diabetes, or cardiovascular disease. Oakley, Ucon, and Oakwood Elementary schools were named ``State Champion'' schools by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports and selected based on their outstanding achievement in the President's Challenge Physical Activity and Fitness Awards Program. I commend these students and their teachers for their commitment to physical fitness. Good habits need to start at a young age and I hope that these students' healthy behaviors will continue throughout their lives.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise today to enter into the Record a proclamation signed by the Governor of the State of Idaho. Rapid population growth and urbanization have become catalysts for many serious environmental impacts and they apply substantial pressures on many facets of our infrastructure. These pressures often result in transportation, health, sanitation, and public safety problems, making urbanization an issue that cannot be ignored. It is, therefore, important for us to recognize the problems associated with rapid population growth and urbanization. The Governor of the State of Idaho has proclaimed the week of October 21-27, 2001, as World Population Awareness Week in my State. I would like to commend the Governor for his commitment to this issue. I ask that the proclamation be printed in the Record. The proclamation follows: Proclamation Whereas, the world population stands today at more than 6.1 billion and increases by some one billion every 13 years; and Whereas, the most significant feature of the 20th century phenomenon of unprecedented world population growth was rapid urbanization; and Whereas, cities and urban areas today occupy only 2% of the earth's land, but contain 50% of its population and consume 75% of its resources; and Whereas, the most rapid urban growth over the next two decades is expected in cities with populations ranging from 250,000 to one million; and Whereas, along with the advantages and amenities, the rapid growth of cities leads to substantial pressure on their infrastructure, manifested in security, health and crime problems, as well as deterring the provision of basic social services; and Whereas, in the interest of national and environmental security, nations must redouble voluntary and humanitarian efforts to stabilize their population growth at sustainable levels, while at all times respecting the cultural and religious beliefs and values of their citizens; and Whereas, World Population Awareness Week was proclaimed last year by Governors of 32 states, as well as Mayors of more than 315 United States cities, and co-sponsored by 231 organizations in 63 countries; and Whereas, the theme of World Population Awareness Week in 2001 is ``Population and the Urban Future''; Now Therefore, I, Dirk Kempthorne, Governor of the State of Idaho, do hereby proclaim the week of October 21 through 27, 2001, to be World Population Awareness Week in Idaho and urge all citizens of our state to take cognizance of this event and to participate appropriately in its observance.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize a national environmental grants program called Project SEARCH. Project SEARCH is a simplified, flexible program that targets small communities most in need of assistance in meeting environmental goals. I am particularly excited about the proposal. I have heard from partners interested in helping with the legislation and from colleagues who recognize the unique challenges small communities face achieving environmental goals. Because of our mutual interest in helping small communities respond to environmental problems, I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. The national Project SEARCH, Special Environmental Assistance for the Regulation of Communities and Habitat, concept is based on a pilot program that operated with great success in Idaho in 1999 and 2000. In short, the bill establishes a simplified application process for communities with populations under 2,500 to receive assistance grants for meeting a broad array of Federal, State, or local environmental regulations. Grants would be available for initial feasibility studies, to address unanticipated costs arising during the course of a project, or when a community demonstrates that other sources of funding are unavailable or insufficient. Some of the major highlights of the program are: a simplified application process--no special grants coordinators required; communities must first have attempted to receive funds from traditional sources; it is open to studies or projects involving any environmental regulation; applications are reviewed and approved by citizens panel of volunteers; the panel chooses the number of recipients and size of grants; the panel consists of volunteers representing all regions of the state; and no local match is required to receive the SEARCH funds. Over the past several years, it has become increasingly apparent that small communities are having problems complying with environmental rules and regulations due primarily to lack of funding, not a willingness to do so. They, like all of us, want clean water and air and a healthy natural environment. Sometimes, they simply cannot shoulder the financial burden with their limited resources. In addition, small communities wishing to pursue unique collaborative efforts might be discouraged by grant administrators who prefer conformity. Some run into unexpected costs during a project and have borrowed and bonded to the maximum. Others are in critical habitat locations and any project may have additional costs, which may not be recognized by traditional financial sources. Still others just need help for the initial environmental feasibility study so they can identify the most effective path forward. With these needs in mind, in 1998, I was able to secure $1.3 million for a grant program for Idaho's small communities. Idaho's program does not replace other funding sources, but serves as a final resort when all other means have been exhausted. The application process was simplified so that any small town mayor, county commissioner, sewer district chairman, or community leader could manage it without hiring a professional grant writer. An independent citizens committee with statewide representation was established to make the selections and get the funds on the ground as quickly as possible. No bureaucratic or political intrusions were permitted. Forty-four communities in Idaho ultimately applied, not including two that failed to meet the eligibility requirements. Ultimately, twenty- one communities were awarded grants in several categories, and ranged in size from $9,000 to $319,000. Communities serving Native Americans and migrants, as well as several innovative collaborative efforts were included in the successful applicants. The communities that were not selected are being given assistance in exploring other funding sources and other advice. The response and feedback from all participants has been overwhelmingly positive. Officials from the state and federal government who witnessed the process have stated that the process worked well and was able to accomplish much on a volunteer basis. There was even extraordinary appreciation from other funding agencies because some communities they were not able to reach were provided funds for feasibility studies. The conclusion of all participants was that Project SEARCH is a program worthy of being expanded nationally. So many small communities in so many states can benefit from a program that assists underserved and often overlooked communities. This legislation provides us the opportunity to help small communities throughout the United States. I have been encouraged by statements from regulatory officials at the Federal, State, and local level that have identified small communities as particularly in need of assistance in this area. Environmental organizations have also made favorable remarks about the importance of assisting small communities with the compliance costs of environmental regulations. Finally, I should also note that organizations representing small towns and rural areas recognize this long overlooked problem. I invite my colleagues to take this opportunity to assist small communities in each of their States. Although the grant program provided for in this bill is not large in comparison to other things the Federal Government funds, these resources could be put to good and effective use, as Idaho has proven. Moreover, I will remind everyone that nowhere does this measure contemplate a change in environmental regulations or standards. This is simply about relief for small communities that would not otherwise be able to serve the public interest or the environment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize a national environmental grants program called Project SEARCH. Project SEARCH is a simplified, flexible program that targets small communities most in need of assistance in meeting environmental goals. I am particularly excited about the proposal. I have heard from partners interested in helping with the legislation and from colleagues who recognize the unique challenges small communities face achieving environmental goals. Because of our mutual interest in helping small communities respond to environmental problems, I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. The national Project SEARCH, Special Environmental Assistance for the Regulation of Communities and Habitat, concept is based on a pilot program that operated with great success in Idaho in 1999 and 2000. In short, the bill establishes a simplified application process for communities with populations under 2,500 to receive assistance grants for meeting a broad array of Federal, State, or local environmental regulations. Grants would be available for initial feasibility studies, to address unanticipated costs arising during the course of a project, or when a community demonstrates that other sources of funding are unavailable or insufficient. Some of the major highlights of the program are: a simplified application process--no special grants coordinators required; communities must first have attempted to receive funds from traditional sources; it is open to studies or projects involving any environmental regulation; applications are reviewed and approved by citizens panel of volunteers; the panel chooses the number of recipients and size of grants; the panel consists of volunteers representing all regions of the state; and no local match is required to receive the SEARCH funds. Over the past several years, it has become increasingly apparent that small communities are having problems complying with environmental rules and regulations due primarily to lack of funding, not a willingness to do so. They, like all of us, want clean water and air and a healthy natural environment. Sometimes, they simply cannot shoulder the financial burden with their limited resources. In addition, small communities wishing to pursue unique collaborative efforts might be discouraged by grant administrators who prefer conformity. Some run into unexpected costs during a project and have borrowed and bonded to the maximum. Others are in critical habitat locations and any project may have additional costs, which may not be recognized by traditional financial sources. Still others just need help for the initial environmental feasibility study so they can identify the most effective path forward. With these needs in mind, in 1998, I was able to secure $1.3 million for a grant program for Idaho's small communities. Idaho's program does not replace other funding sources, but serves as a final resort when all other means have been exhausted. The application process was simplified so that any small town mayor, county commissioner, sewer district chairman, or community leader could manage it without hiring a professional grant writer. An independent citizens committee with statewide representation was established to make the selections and get the funds on the ground as quickly as possible. No bureaucratic or political intrusions were permitted. Forty-four communities in Idaho ultimately applied, not including two that failed to meet the eligibility requirements. Ultimately, twenty- one communities were awarded grants in several categories, and ranged in size from $9,000 to $319,000. Communities serving Native Americans and migrants, as well as several innovative collaborative efforts were included in the successful applicants. The communities that were not selected are being given assistance in exploring other funding sources and other advice. The response and feedback from all participants has been overwhelmingly positive. Officials from the state and federal government who witnessed the process have stated that the process worked well and was able to accomplish much on a volunteer basis. There was even extraordinary appreciation from other funding agencies because some communities they were not able to reach were provided funds for feasibility studies. The conclusion of all participants was that Project SEARCH is a program worthy of being expanded nationally. So many small communities in so many states can benefit from a program that assists underserved and often overlooked communities. This legislation provides us the opportunity to help small communities throughout the United States. I have been encouraged by statements from regulatory officials at the Federal, State, and local level that have identified small communities as particularly in need of assistance in this area. Environmental organizations have also made favorable remarks about the importance of assisting small communities with the compliance costs of environmental regulations. Finally, I should also note that organizations representing small towns and rural areas recognize this long overlooked problem. I invite my colleagues to take this opportunity to assist small communities in each of their States. Although the grant program provided for in this bill is not large in comparison to other things the Federal Government funds, these resources could be put to good and effective use, as Idaho has proven. Moreover, I will remind everyone that nowhere does this measure contemplate a change in environmental regulations or standards. This is simply about relief for small communities that would not otherwise be able to serve the public interest or the environment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation naming the Federal building and United States courthouse in Boise, ID, for our former colleague Senator James A. McClure. Jim McClure ably served Idaho for 24 years in the United States Congress, including 18 years here in the Senate. At the time of his retirement from the Senate in 1991, Jim McClure was one of the most senior members of the Republican Conference, serving as its Chairman from 1981 to 1985. Prior to entering Congress in 1967, Jim McClure also served 6 years in the Idaho State Senate. Throughout his service in Congress, Jim McClure was widely recognized for his expertise on energy and natural resource issues, especially in the areas of mining, forestry, public land, water, and natural resource law. As Chairman of both the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Jim McClure was a key legislator behind the establishment of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area in western Idaho and eastern Oregon. Jim McClure also led the drive for the creation of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho, and he was instrumental in helping to assist and improve Idaho's rural economy and standard of living. Known for his ardent support of second amendment rights and hard-line stance on foreign policy and defense issues, Jim McClure was an influential voice in working with several administrations on arms control issues. In 1990, he was a part of a four-member Senate delegation that visited Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to express concern about Iraq's development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Having retired from the Senate more than 10 years ago, Jim McClure has continued to be active in working with Congress on behalf of many important groups in Idaho and throughout the country. His civic- mindedness has also been illustrated through his service as a Trustee for the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. As former Prosecuting Attorney for Payette County, ID, as well as former City Attorney for Payette, the renaming of this courthouse for Jim McClure is an appropriate tribute to his service to Idaho and to the Nation. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Craig and me in honoring Senator James A. McClure through this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation naming the Federal building and United States courthouse in Boise, ID, for our former colleague Senator James A. McClure. Jim McClure ably served Idaho for 24 years in the United States Congress, including 18 years here in the Senate. At the time of his retirement from the Senate in 1991, Jim McClure was one of the most senior members of the Republican Conference, serving as its Chairman from 1981 to 1985. Prior to entering Congress in 1967, Jim McClure also served 6 years in the Idaho State Senate. Throughout his service in Congress, Jim McClure was widely recognized for his expertise on energy and natural resource issues, especially in the areas of mining, forestry, public land, water, and natural resource law. As Chairman of both the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Jim McClure was a key legislator behind the establishment of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area in western Idaho and eastern Oregon. Jim McClure also led the drive for the creation of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho, and he was instrumental in helping to assist and improve Idaho's rural economy and standard of living. Known for his ardent support of second amendment rights and hard-line stance on foreign policy and defense issues, Jim McClure was an influential voice in working with several administrations on arms control issues. In 1990, he was a part of a four-member Senate delegation that visited Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to express concern about Iraq's development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Having retired from the Senate more than 10 years ago, Jim McClure has continued to be active in working with Congress on behalf of many important groups in Idaho and throughout the country. His civic- mindedness has also been illustrated through his service as a Trustee for the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. As former Prosecuting Attorney for Payette County, ID, as well as former City Attorney for Payette, the renaming of this courthouse for Jim McClure is an appropriate tribute to his service to Idaho and to the Nation. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Craig and me in honoring Senator James A. McClure through this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a provision that has been included in the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee manager's amendment to H.R. 2500 that is absolutely crucial to recovering threatened and endangered species, while also protecting people and the economies of areas where these species are present. I would like to thank the esteemed Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee and the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee for recognizing the critical nature of this issue and including it in the manager's amendment. The Endangered Species Act, ESA, requires Federal agencies to avoid actions that are likely to ``jeopardize'' the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Agencies must ``consult'' with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, who issue a biological opinion at the conclusion of consultation to assist the Federal agency to meet its substantive no-jeopardy obligation. The obligation to avoid jeopardy rests upon on the Federal ``action agency,'' not on the Services. These actions may include the construction of a highway or bridge, a stream restoration project to benefit listed fish species, a forest health activity such as thinning or prescribed fire to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, or the operation of hydroelectric projects. In the West, we have seen countless projects held up for inordinate amounts of time. They have caused economic hardship and job loss, while also draining the resources of the Federal Government. What is so significant about these resources being consumed by the consultation process is that in nearly all of these cases, projects did not jeopardize threatened or endangered species. In nearly every case, neither the species nor their habitats were at risk. In every case, this was a matter of doing paperwork that is required by the regulatory process. And, in no case, did this process do anything to increase a species chances of survival or improve habitat for that species on-the- ground. In 1986, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service issued joint regulations that divided consultations into ``informal'' and ``formal.'' Informal consultations occur for any action that ``may affect'' a listed species. If the consulting Service finds that adverse affect on the species is likely, then formal consultation begins and the service will issue a formal biological opinion. Since 1986, the consultation process has mushroomed into a lengthy and expensive process. Eight hundred and twenty two new species have been listed since then, including 21 new salmon listings in the past five years. Between 1987 and 1995 Federal agencies were required to complete more than 186,000 consultations with the Services on proposed programs and projects. The increasing number of critical habitat designations will only add to this burden. Despite efforts to manage the workload under existing rules, the Services have been unable to quell growing criticism that they cannot do the job adequately. Yet only three tenths of one percent of these projects, let me say that again, only three tenths of one percent or fewer than 600, were found to be likely to jeopardize a protected species or adversely modify critical habitat. A full 99.7 percent of all consultations involved projects that already complied fully with the ESA. Only one out of every 300 consultations involved a project with a potential to violate the ESA. Each year Federal agencies are compelled to expend millions of Federal dollars for elaborate consultations on projects that pose no significant threat to species. Each of these consultations requires extensive studies and reports by the Federal action agency and one or both of the Services, and extends for months or years before ending with the inevitable no-jeopardy finding that was obvious from the start. The Services have increased their staffs every year for the past decade in order to complete more and more of these unneeded consultations that have no value for protected species. These project delays further drain the Federal Treasury by increasing the ultimate costs of the stalled projects. The delays also cause millions of dollars more in lost economic opportunity for private citizens dependent on a stalled project. These consultations sap resources from those relatively few situations where a species actually needs protection from a proposed Federal agency project or program. This out-of-control consultation process is contrary to Congress' intent in enacting the Endangered Species Act. The Supreme Court has observed that consultation is among the ESA's procedural safeguards intended ``to avoid needless economic dislocation produced by agency officials zealously but unintelligently pursuing their environmental objectives.'' (Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 176-77 (1997).) The joint consultation rules must be modified to mitigate the problem, reduce the workload and continue the same level of protection for the listed species. The regulations have caused large numbers of unneeded and burdensome consultations. None of these is required by the ESA and none of them is necessary in today's heightened sensitivity of endangered species responsibility to protect listed species. It is impossible to make the argument that streamlining the consultation regulations will negatively affect species. In fact, a more efficient and effective process will help imperiled species by reducing unnecessary paperwork, and thus, reducing the resources needed to do the paperwork, and by redirecting this precious resources to making real, on-the-ground improvements for imperiled species. My provision, which has been included in the bill, would direct the Services to review this situation and revise their joint regulations accordingly. The review would consider the significant increase in number, cost, and duration of consultations since promulgation of the regulations in 1986 and would result in modifications to the regulations that will streamline the consultation process to ensure that: one, all forms of consultation are completed within the deadlines provided in section 7 of the ESA; two, the requirements for initiating consultation and for any information generated and documentation prepared by both the action agency and the consulting agency during consultation are fully consistent with section 7; and three, the consultation process is conducted in an efficient and useful manner to meet the purpose of section 7. Section 7(b) of the ESA imposes a 90-day deadline, subject to certain extensions to which each agency must agree. If there is a permit applicant involved, consultation may not exceed 150 days without the applicant's consent. The 1986 regulations make no effort to follow these deadlines during the informal consultation stage, thus allowing this process to drag on and on. A primary cause of the explosion in unneeded consultations is the extremely low threshold in the regulations for an action agency to initiate a consultation. The regulations require an action agency to initiate consultation for any proposed action that ``may affect'' either a listed species or critical habitat. In announcing the regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Service explained that they may affect threshold means that ``any possible effect, whether beneficial, benign, adverse, or of an undetermined character, triggers the formal consultation requirement.'' The regulations do not permit an action agency to decide that it does not need to consult on a ``may affect'' action, no matter how harmless the activity may be. A ``may affect'' action can be exempted from formal consultation only if a Service concurs in writing that the action is ``not likely to adversely affect'' a listed species or critical habitat. That finding itself requires a multi-step inter- agency administrative process called informal consultation, which often takes longer than the formal consultation it is intended to avoid. The ESA does not contain the ``may affect'' consultation threshold. As a matter of fact, the Endangered Species Act does not contain any consultation threshold at all. The ``may affect'' threshold in the regulations is so far removed from the substantive no-jeopardy requirement in the ESA that large volumes of unnecessary consultations were virtually guaranteed to occur--and have. Other sections of the regulations also compel large numbers of unnecessary consultations: consultation is required on any action authorized, funded, or carried out ``in part'' by a federal agency, even if the Federal involvement is minor or secondary to private or state action; consultation is required for agency actions that are intended to benefit species; consultation is required for agency regulations with no direct on-the-ground impact; and consultation is required for agency actions that ``indirectly'' cause modification to the land, water, or air. The regulations also impose burdensome documentation requirements, far beyond the ESA, that guarantee that even the most minor consultation will be long and slow. The action agency is required to initiate every formal consultation with a detailed written report on the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or critical habitat and an analysis of any cumulative effects, and must also provide the best scientific and commercial information available or which can be obtained during the consultation for an adequate review of the effects that an action may have upon listed species or critical habitat. Moreover, while the ESA only requires ``biological assessments'' to be prepared for ``major construction activities,'' the joint regulations make this detailed analysis a virtual requirement for every agency action. The joint regulations then mandate that a biological opinion include a detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed species or critical habitat that addresses all of the indirect, interrelated, interconnected and cumulative effects as defined in the regulations. In contrast, the ESA only requires that a biological opinion set forth a summary of the information on which the opinion is based, detailing how the agency action affects the species or its critical habitat. The Services have the authority under existing law to amend their regulations to improve the operation of the process. The agencies can initiate a rulemaking process to amend their regulations, with notice and opportunity for the public to comment, following the same procedures as were employed for the original 1986 regulations. No amendment of the ESA is required. The amendment I am offering merely directs the Services to use a portion of their fiscal year 2002 funds to review the consultation regulations and propose changes that will bring this process into line with the realities of the 21st Century and will enable all federal agencies to fulfill their obligations under the ESA. The Endangered Species Act is besieged with problems that must be solved in order to adequately protected listed species and recover them. At the same time, many Western communities feel that they have been assaulted by the ESA in the last two decades. Win-win solutions often evade us as policymakers when it comes to issues that are as contentious as the Endangered Species, but this is truly a win-win for species AND people. Again, my sincere thanks to the chairman and Ranking Member of the Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee for their assistance in finding solutions to this troubling issue.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise regarding the Senate's passage of H.R. 2213, the House-passed Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act. There is a great need for economic assistance in farm country. There is no disagreement about that fact. There has been no disagreement that we will spend the $12.85 billion provided in the budget for agriculture in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The question has been on when and how we will spend it. I wanted to pass an emergency bill with more emergency money than was in the House-passed bill. I was willing to work toward a compromise that met the current needs of our farmers--even if that meant spending a small portion of the fiscal year 2002 funding. I had asked for Senate action on this supplemental since before the House passed its emergency assistance package on June 26th--more than a month ago. But, time ran out. The House bill does not fund all the needs of Idaho's farmers and ranchers. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a necessary one. We now have a good start in providing short-term assistance to our producers. I hope we can build on that when we return in September. We should move quickly to a farm bill. A fair and effective national food policy that recognizes the importance of a safe, abundant, domestic supply of food. Farmers and ranchers across the country are looking to us to pass legislation that will: provide a safety net to producers, increase the commitment to conservation, bolster our export promotion programs, continue our commitment to agricultural research, and, find innovative ways to address rural development needs. These are pressing needs. These are important needs, and the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee tried to address many of these needs in the economic assistance package. Now that we have allocated the $5.5 billion for fiscal year 2001, I hope that we can now focus our efforts on the farm bill. I look forward to working in cooperation with the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee to craft a fair and effective bill as expeditiously as possible. But, as those of us who worked on the 1996 Farm Bill know, the farm bill alone will not solve all our problems. We must continue to pursue tax reforms, address unfair regulatory burdens, and move toward free and fair trade. Our producers are being handcuffed by unfair foreign competition and barriers to exports, it is time this stopped. I hope the recent debate on the emergency supplemental has raised awareness of the needs in agriculture. I hope this has prodded us to action on the farm bill. And, I hope we can work together for the needs of not just agricultural producers, but the consumers that benefit from efficient, safe, domestic food production.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Conservation Extension and Enhancement, CEE, Act. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senator Richard Lugar, the Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, and Senator Tim Hutchinson. America's agricultural producers have long been the best stewards of the land. This legislation helps farmers and ranchers continue to meet the public's increasing demands for cleaner air and water, greater soil conservation, increased wildlife habitat, and more open space. These demands have resulted in more stringent applications of Federal and State environmental regulations, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act. It is appropriate we direct our funding to help producers in their efforts to provide these public benefits. Conservation is an important component of Federal farm policy. This proposal dedicates the resources necessary to ensure farmers and ranchers are receiving the assistance they need to provide the environmental benefits the public deserves. It will keep working farms working effectively from an economic and environmental perspective. To do this, CEE re-authorizes necessary conservation programs, makes enhancements to these voluntary programs, and provides increased funding to meet increasing needs. The last farm bill built on the past successes of the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, and Wetlands Reserve Program, WRP, and enhanced the flexibility of the compliance programs, while creating a number of new conservation programs. There are many success stories associated with these programs, both new and old. However, there have also been suggestions made to improve these programs. This initiative implements those suggestions to make the programs more effective and increases their funding. CRP has been one of the most successful conservation programs in USDA history. The program provides a rental payment to producers for voluntarily converting highly-erodible or environmentally-sensitive cropland to a cover crop or grasses or trees. The program has led to a tremendous reduction in soil erosion, and has been responsible for creation of habitat for a wide variety of species. Unfortunately, CRP is currently nearing its acreage cap. I share the concerns of many producers and rural Americans about the impact of idled land on production and main street economies. CEE increases the acreage cap by 3.6 million acres to a total of 40 million acres, but it sets aside those 3.6 million acres for continuous enrollment CRP and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, CREP. These two programs, continuous CRP and CREP, focus on conservation buffers, allowing producers to maintain working lands, while getting assistance in protecting their most environmentally-sensitive lands. WRP has played an important role in protecting and restoring wetlands. WRP provides payments to producers for enrolling wetlands in permanent, thirty-year, or ten-year easements. It also provides technical and financial assistance to land owners seeking help in restoring wetlands. The environmental benefits of wetlands cannot be underestimated. Unfortunately, WRP is nearing its acreage cap of 1.075 million acres. CEE allows for an additional 250,000 acres to be enrolled in the program annually. The Farmland Protection Program is targeted at easing development pressure on agriculture lands. It provides a payment to producers who agree to enroll land in easements and has been an important program in meeting the public demand for open space. Again, producer demand far outpaces available funding. CEE provides $100 million annually to this important program. Another successful program in need of continued authorization and funding is the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. This program provides technical and financial assistance to producers who want to establish improved fish and wildlife habitat. My bill provides $100 million annually to this program, while creating a pilot project that assists landowners in focusing their efforts on addressing species concerns before the species is in threat of listing under the endangered species act. One of the most important programs available to assist producers is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. EQIP provides technical and financial assistance to producers to adopt conservation practices. Demand for the program greatly exceeds existing funding. CEE provides for a tripling of the funding, while increasing flexibility in the program. EQIP has been the primary vehicle for assisting producers to comply with the Clean Water Act. It has been estimated producers will have to spend billions to comply with new regulations, such as total maximum daily loads and confined animal feeding operations. Increasing the funding and flexibility of the EQIP programs is vital to helping producers meet the challenges of the Clean Water Act and other environmental regulations. Also included in this comprehensive bill is the creation of the Grasslands Reserve Program. Like the other conservation programs created through past farm bills, it is a bipartisanly-supported, voluntary program. The Grasslands Reserve Program would be a voluntary grassland easement program to provide protections for native grasslands. This will ease development pressure on ranchlands, providing a long-term commitment to wildlife and the environment. I am also pleased to be a co-sponsor of a free-standing Grassland's legislation introduced by my colleague, Senator Larry Craig. CEE also provides funding for the Conservation of Private Grazing Lands program. This program offers technical assistance to ranchers seeking to implement best management practices and other range improvements. The bill codifies existing practices for the Resource Conservation and Development, RC&D, program, while increasing flexibility in the use of funds. RC&Ds effectively leverage federal funds to assist in stabilizing and growing communities while protecting and developing natural resources. CEE also provides for several studies. It authorizes a National Academy of Sciences study to develop a protocol for measuring accomplishments. This protocol is necessary to ensure we are getting maximum environmental benefits for the taxpayer. The bill also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to review existing disaster programs and report on how to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of the overall disaster program. Natural disasters are a constant threat to farmers and ranchers. Flooding, drought, fire, and other natural events impact even the most efficient operations, causing losses beyond producer control. An effective disaster program is vital to the survival of many farms and ranches. Conservation programs are vital to continued progress in creating efficient, environmentally and farmer-friendly agricultural policies. This bill sets a baseline as we endeavor to create a farm policy that recognizes the importance of conservation efforts, builds upon past efforts, is equitable, and has measurable achievements. I ask my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this bill.

Mr. CRAPO

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