Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Alaska for his strong support on this issue. He is, as I indicated, a cosponsor of the legislation we will be pursuing and was supporting us in the effort to put this amendment on this bill again as it was last year. Just so we can understand correctly, I want to read into the Record what the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture committed to so we can begin the process, which I think is a very important first step in moving toward resolution of this issue. The first letter is from Secretary Gale Norton, the Secretary of the Interior: Dear Senator Crapo: The U.S. Department of the Interior is committed to working with you and other Members of Congress to develop a comprehensive process to ensure that state and local governments and citizens have an opportunity to participate in issues relating to backcountry airstrips located on lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Our Nation's backcountry airstrips are important to many activities that take place on our public lands. Airstrips provide remote access for aerial firefighting efforts, they are an essential safety tool for pilots operating in rural and mountainous areas, and they provide a vital link to the outside world for many rural communities. It is important to ensure that legitimate uses of backcountry airstrips are protected. It is also a priority for this Department that any proposals to alter use of federal lands must go through open and public process that includes close consultation with local communities. I commit to work with you, and other members of the congressional delegation, the State of Idaho, and local communities on any proposals to change the use of backcountry airstrips on lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The second letter is from the Department of Agriculture: Dear Senator Crapo: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is committed to working with you and other Members of Congress to develop a comprehensive, long-term approach for managing backcountry airstrips on lands managed by the USDA Forest Service. We agree that it is appropriate to maintain airstrips that provide critical air access to rural, backcountry, or wilderness areas; that contribute to pilot safety; or that support aerial firefighting efforts. The Department also agrees that these airstrips should not be permanently closed without prior consultation with State aviation and other appropriate officials. We appreciate your leadership on this issue and look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Ann Veneman, Secretary. Mr. President, because we have now obtained the commitment of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior that they will work with us in a public process and in a consultative process with the State officials involved in managing aviation issues, and because they have acknowledged the important critical needs of maintaining these backcountry airstrips in good condition, and instead of closing them, keeping them open and available for use, we do not believe it is necessary to pursue this amendment on this legislation. I appreciate the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture agreeing and working with us to avoid the need for this amendment, and we appreciate their commitment to work with us in the future on permanent legislation that will fully resolve this issue statutorily. Therefore, Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and the ranking member, Senator Burns, for the hard work they have put into this year's Interior and related agencies appropriations bill. It is a changing process and they have done an excellent job in balancing the competing interests within the confines of our effort to make sure we maintain a balanced budget. At this point, I want to explain the amendment I present. I intend to withdraw the amendment when I am finished discussing it for reasons that will become apparent as I discuss it. In the past couple of years, we have seen a disturbing trend in the Department of the Interior and in the Depart of Agriculture regarding our Forest Service relating to back-country airstrips. The administration has begun to follow a pattern of allowing back-country airstrips to either go into a state of disrepair--here they become unusable--or to actually close, permanently close some of them, which is a serious problem to those parts of our public lands that need the services that these back-country airstrips can supply. Idaho, right now, is home to more than 50 of these landing strips, and our State is known nationwide for its air access to public lands and wilderness and primitive areas. Unfortunately, in the past, many of these airstrips in Idaho, and in other parts of the country, have been rendered unserviceable through the neglect I talked about earlier, or the decisions to close the airstrips without adequate public notice or any justification being provided. There is a concern about this because these airstrips provide not only access to the back country for recreational use, but they are critical for maintenance and some of the management purposes of the agencies in managing our public lands and fighting forest fires, for example, or in providing the necessary access by agency personnel to perform their work on public lands, and also as part of rescue missions when they find the need to provide for rescue. It is those who use the back-country airstrips who are often the ones who provide the valiant efforts to make rescues of people who are in distress in our national public lands. Senators Craig and Murkowski are cosponsors with me on the legislation to address this issue and to require the agencies to work with State and local communities and to engage in a process of public notice and justification. In fact, it is our hope that, ultimately, we will be able to pass this legislation on a permanent basis. That would require the agencies to obtain the consent of the State personnel who are involved with the management of our airways and aviation concerns. At this point, we were prepared to offer this amendment to the bill this year to the Interior appropriations bill, which would have, simply for the period of this appropriations bill, required the agencies to consult with the State agency officials involved in aviation management in the States, and to assure that the right kind of consultation would occur between the various State and Federal officials before closure of any of these landing strips in our back-country areas. However, we have been working with the administration to try to obviate the need to propose this amendment. I am pleased to say, that I am now able to report to the people in the country that both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture have agreed--and I will be submitting letters for the Record in writing to indicate this agreement--that they will honor the purposes of this amendment and make it the policy of those two agencies to comply with the requirements of this amendment and to continue to work with us on our permanent legislation so we can address this issue on a permanent basis.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to say thank you to Dr. Bernard ``Bernie'' Meyers, President and General Manager of Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC (BBWI). BBWI manages the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) for the United States Department of Energy. The INEEL is the third largest employer in the state of Idaho and the largest employer in my hometown of Idaho Falls. For the past 2 years Bernie's professional and personal skills have helped lead the INEEL in its mission to be an enduring national resource that delivers science and engineered solutions to the world's environmental, energy and security challenges. On August 1, 2001, Bernie will retire as President of BBWI and assume additional duties on behalf of Bechtel. In addition to his duties as President of BBWI, Bernie is also Senior Vice President in the 30,000 employee worldwide Bechtel organization. Bernie's 39-year professional career includes 26 years spent with Bechtel, where he has risen through the nuclear engineering ranks while serving as an Engineer, Supervisor, Project Manager, Vice President, and finally as Senior Vice President. Bernie's stewardship of Bechtel BWXT Idaho represents a strong demonstration of Bechtel's commitment to provide customer satisfaction and operational excellence for the eastern Idaho community. In addition to being a Senior Vice President, Bernie has in the past directed major Bechtel companies, managed North American operations, headed up the firm's Engineering and Construction operations, managed Bechtel's nuclear business line and served as an ``in-the-trenches'' project manage for some $30 billion worth of nuclear power jobs. During that same time, Bernie gained INEEL-applicable experience in integrating safety through diverse workforces and in serving as a leader in nuclear technologies and nuclear operations. Over the years, he has managed large, complex and highly technical entities; overseen research and development organizations, and helped expand new and existing business lines into both national and international markets. He also has integrated technical, management and business systems across multiple offices, companies, sites, and disciplines. Bernie is a Fellow in the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Concrete Institute, and has authored a textbook, as well as more than 60 professional papers. He holds a master's degree in civil engineering from the University of Missouri and a doctor's degree in civil engineering from Cornell University. During his time in Idaho, Bernie Meyers has provided sound thinking, decisive leadership and an intelligent vision for the future of the INEEL. He has provided honest and frequent communications about INEEL activities with Idaho's Congressional delegation, Idaho elected officials, key stakeholders, business and community leaders and the site's employees. Under Bernie leadership, BBWI has proven to be a solid corporate neighbor throughout the state of Idaho. His advocacy for science education has helped to firmly establish the JASON Science Education program in the state, creating an awareness of science and technology careers for Idaho's elementary and secondary school students. His support of art, cultural and civic causes have contributed to the financial well being of many of organizations in Idaho. On behalf of the people of Idaho, I want to say thank you to Bernie Meyers for a job well done. I want to wish Bernie and his wife Rita all the best as they tackle new challenges in the years ahead.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to prevent a serious disruption in the distribution of prescription drugs across America. Unless changed by this legislation, or modified by the agency itself, a regulation issued by the Food and Drug Administration will drive out of business thousands of small and medium sized drug wholesalers. Tens of thousands of small nursing homes, clinics, doctor's offices, drug stores, and veterinary practices, especially in rural areas, would be forced to find new suppliers of prescription drugs, who would almost certainly charge higher prices. Consumers, especially the sickest and the least able to pay, would be even further hard-pressed to afford the prescription drugs they need to maintain their health. There is no real health or safety reason behind the FDA's action, which is simply a lack of understanding of how the wholesale distribution of drugs actually works. The agency's regulation would complete the implementation of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, which was enacted in April 1988. That statute, which was designed to stop the misuse of drug samples, prevent various types of resale fraud, stop the importation of counterfeit drugs, and establish minimum national standards for the storage and handling of drugs by wholesalers, has worked well. However, the FDA's regulation, which will go into effect on April 1, 2001, created two problems for wholesalers, neither of which were present when the agency issued its initial policy guidance on the statute in 1988. The first problem relates to the sales history of drug products which wholesalers must provide their customers. A wholesaler who does not purchase directly from a manufacturer must provide their customer with a detailed history of all prior sales of that product back to the wholesaler who did purchase the drugs from the manufacturer. This provision was designed to prevent the introduction of counterfeits or other drugs from questionable or unknown sources into the marketplace. The FDA's initial guidance was that resellers who did not purchase drugs directly from a manufacturer had to trace the product back to the wholesaler who did purchase directly from the manufacturer. This wholesaler is known as an authorized distributor. Not withstanding the fact that this system has produced a drug distribution system of exceptional quality, the FDA has changed its mind as to what the statute required and proposed that a reseller now be required to trace the product history all the way back to the manufacturer. At the same time, however, the agency also concluded that the statute does not require either the manufacturer or the authorized distributor to provide this sales history to the secondary reseller. But without this very detailed sales history, it will be illegal for the secondary wholesaler to resell products. Since it is economically and logistically impractical for manufacturers or authorized distributors to keep track of the huge volume of product in the extreme detail required by the FDA rule, thousands of secondary wholesalers will be forced to cease business. Fortunately, there is a simple solution. In 1990, the FDA finalized a regulation implementing another part of the PDMA, which requires wholesalers to keep very detailed records of all purchases, sales, or other dispositions of the drugs they obtain. These records, which are very similar to the detailed sales history in the FDA's latest regulation, are also subject to audit by the agency, by state regulators, and must be made available to law enforcement agencies if needed. Thus, there is really no need for a secondary wholesaler to try and assemble the detailed and virtually unobtainable sales history now demanded by the FDA and to pass it on to their customers. Instead, the bill I am introducing today requires only that secondary wholesalers provide a written statement to their customers that the drug products were first purchased from a manufacturer or authorized distributor. Substituting the written statement would prevent a serious disruption in the wholesale drug sector while preserving the original intent of the PDMA, which was to guard the network of licensed and inspected wholesalers from counterfeits or drugs from questionable sources. It would be a simple matter for a secondary wholesaler to determine that a shipment of drugs was first purchased by an authorized wholesaler, and the written statement would be subject to criminal penalties if falsified under existing law. Substituting the written statement for the paper trail requirement would also reduce selling costs, which could be passed on to the consumer. This bill is a companion to H.R. 68, introduced on January 3, 2001, by Representatives Jo Ann Emerson and Marion Berry. That bill now has 45 co-sponsors who represent an especially diverse geographical and ideological cross section of the House and is supported by nine major trade and professional organizations representing most companies that wholesale or retail prescription drugs in the U.S. I invite my colleagues in the Senate to add their names to this commonsense measure.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to prevent a serious disruption in the distribution of prescription drugs across America. Unless changed by this legislation, or modified by the agency itself, a regulation issued by the Food and Drug Administration will drive out of business thousands of small and medium sized drug wholesalers. Tens of thousands of small nursing homes, clinics, doctor's offices, drug stores, and veterinary practices, especially in rural areas, would be forced to find new suppliers of prescription drugs, who would almost certainly charge higher prices. Consumers, especially the sickest and the least able to pay, would be even further hard-pressed to afford the prescription drugs they need to maintain their health. There is no real health or safety reason behind the FDA's action, which is simply a lack of understanding of how the wholesale distribution of drugs actually works. The agency's regulation would complete the implementation of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, which was enacted in April 1988. That statute, which was designed to stop the misuse of drug samples, prevent various types of resale fraud, stop the importation of counterfeit drugs, and establish minimum national standards for the storage and handling of drugs by wholesalers, has worked well. However, the FDA's regulation, which will go into effect on April 1, 2001, created two problems for wholesalers, neither of which were present when the agency issued its initial policy guidance on the statute in 1988. The first problem relates to the sales history of drug products which wholesalers must provide their customers. A wholesaler who does not purchase directly from a manufacturer must provide their customer with a detailed history of all prior sales of that product back to the wholesaler who did purchase the drugs from the manufacturer. This provision was designed to prevent the introduction of counterfeits or other drugs from questionable or unknown sources into the marketplace. The FDA's initial guidance was that resellers who did not purchase drugs directly from a manufacturer had to trace the product back to the wholesaler who did purchase directly from the manufacturer. This wholesaler is known as an authorized distributor. Not withstanding the fact that this system has produced a drug distribution system of exceptional quality, the FDA has changed its mind as to what the statute required and proposed that a reseller now be required to trace the product history all the way back to the manufacturer. At the same time, however, the agency also concluded that the statute does not require either the manufacturer or the authorized distributor to provide this sales history to the secondary reseller. But without this very detailed sales history, it will be illegal for the secondary wholesaler to resell products. Since it is economically and logistically impractical for manufacturers or authorized distributors to keep track of the huge volume of product in the extreme detail required by the FDA rule, thousands of secondary wholesalers will be forced to cease business. Fortunately, there is a simple solution. In 1990, the FDA finalized a regulation implementing another part of the PDMA, which requires wholesalers to keep very detailed records of all purchases, sales, or other dispositions of the drugs they obtain. These records, which are very similar to the detailed sales history in the FDA's latest regulation, are also subject to audit by the agency, by state regulators, and must be made available to law enforcement agencies if needed. Thus, there is really no need for a secondary wholesaler to try and assemble the detailed and virtually unobtainable sales history now demanded by the FDA and to pass it on to their customers. Instead, the bill I am introducing today requires only that secondary wholesalers provide a written statement to their customers that the drug products were first purchased from a manufacturer or authorized distributor. Substituting the written statement would prevent a serious disruption in the wholesale drug sector while preserving the original intent of the PDMA, which was to guard the network of licensed and inspected wholesalers from counterfeits or drugs from questionable sources. It would be a simple matter for a secondary wholesaler to determine that a shipment of drugs was first purchased by an authorized wholesaler, and the written statement would be subject to criminal penalties if falsified under existing law. Substituting the written statement for the paper trail requirement would also reduce selling costs, which could be passed on to the consumer. This bill is a companion to H.R. 68, introduced on January 3, 2001, by Representatives Jo Ann Emerson and Marion Berry. That bill now has 45 co-sponsors who represent an especially diverse geographical and ideological cross section of the House and is supported by nine major trade and professional organizations representing most companies that wholesale or retail prescription drugs in the U.S. I invite my colleagues in the Senate to add their names to this commonsense measure.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my Legislative Director, Glen Tait, who is leaving my employ for other opportunities outside the Senate. He has been an integral part of my staff since I was elected to the Senate, and his absence will be greatly noted. Glen's involvement in the Senate dates back more than a decade, much of it spent in service to the State of Idaho. Prior to coming to work for me, he worked for my predecessor, Dirk Kempthorne, so he truly has become an adopted Idahoan. Glen has headed up my legislative efforts since I was first elected, and has provided invaluable guidance and direction for my legislative staff. He is particularly knowledgeable about military and energy issues, both of which hold significant importance to the State of Idaho. Mountain Home Air Force Base and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory owe a great debt to his expertise and ability. Glen has strong insight into the legislative processes of the Senate and served as a mentor to a number of staffers, who have taken that knowledge and used it to help improve their career options. Glen's wife tells me that he will miss working directly for the people of Idaho, and we will miss him tremendously as well. But he will have a constant reminder of the State in at least one of his two daughters. Glen and his lovely wife, Jeanette, have two young toddlers at home, Lindsey Marie and Hailey Madison. Hailey was named for the town of the same name in Idaho, and for the county in Idaho in which she was born. I wish him the very best and want him to know how much I appreciate the stability and guidance he provided to a fledgling Senate legislative staff several years ago. My best wishes go out to him as he moves on to other opportunities.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time between now and when we vote be divided for debate as follows: Mr. Baucus, 5 minutes; Mr. Kennedy, 5 minutes; Mr. Dodd, 5 minutes; Mr. Conrad, 10 minutes; Mr. Grassley, 5 minutes. I further ask consent that at the expiration of this time the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will encourage the expansion of an often overlooked domestic energy resource that offers a source of revenue for our rural communities and an avenue for cleanup of agricultural waste. I am pleased to be joined by co- sponsors Senator Hutchinson and Senator Helms. It has been well-publicized that our country faces mounting uncertainty in meeting our energy demands. After years of getting little attention, we are now in a period where the development of domestic energy resources has reached a crucial point. I support our efforts to diversify our energy supply resources to ensure our nation's energy security, support our business and agricultural economies, and protect our individual consumers. This time of challenge also offers great opportunities. One of those is the opportunity to encourage a largely untapped resource to provide domestic energy, while also promoting the protection of the environment and rural development. I am speaking about energy derived from agricultural and animal waste sources. Electricity from biomass and waste sources using modern technology is a renewable resource that can add to our domestic energy supply. The process uses manure and waste products that are heated and converted into biogas that is burned to generate electricity, which is sold into the power grid. This technology is widely accepted in Europe where over 600 systems are in operation today. In this country, the technology is gaining acceptance following numerous successful case studies. This process offers farmers an option for cleaning agricultural waste that is a known source of groundwater contamination and air pollution. The revenue generated from the sale of electricity provides a source of income to offset the cleanup costs, while providing important kilowatts to the power grid. The bill I am introducing today would extend the 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour production tax credit that is currently available to wind, closed-loop biomass, and poultry waste by making it available to all agricultural and animal waste sources. There have been other bills introduced that would extend the tax credit to additional renewable sources such as solar energy. I encourage efforts to broaden the definition of renewable sources and, for that reason, I am also proposing an amendment to S. 388, the comprehensive national energy bill introduced by Senator Murkowski. The amendment would add agricultural and animal waste as a renewable energy resource listed under that bill. The use of modern technology to generate electricity from waste should not be overlooked. The tax credit is a important incentive to encourage its wider use. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will encourage the expansion of an often overlooked domestic energy resource that offers a source of revenue for our rural communities and an avenue for cleanup of agricultural waste. I am pleased to be joined by co- sponsors Senator Hutchinson and Senator Helms. It has been well-publicized that our country faces mounting uncertainty in meeting our energy demands. After years of getting little attention, we are now in a period where the development of domestic energy resources has reached a crucial point. I support our efforts to diversify our energy supply resources to ensure our nation's energy security, support our business and agricultural economies, and protect our individual consumers. This time of challenge also offers great opportunities. One of those is the opportunity to encourage a largely untapped resource to provide domestic energy, while also promoting the protection of the environment and rural development. I am speaking about energy derived from agricultural and animal waste sources. Electricity from biomass and waste sources using modern technology is a renewable resource that can add to our domestic energy supply. The process uses manure and waste products that are heated and converted into biogas that is burned to generate electricity, which is sold into the power grid. This technology is widely accepted in Europe where over 600 systems are in operation today. In this country, the technology is gaining acceptance following numerous successful case studies. This process offers farmers an option for cleaning agricultural waste that is a known source of groundwater contamination and air pollution. The revenue generated from the sale of electricity provides a source of income to offset the cleanup costs, while providing important kilowatts to the power grid. The bill I am introducing today would extend the 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour production tax credit that is currently available to wind, closed-loop biomass, and poultry waste by making it available to all agricultural and animal waste sources. There have been other bills introduced that would extend the tax credit to additional renewable sources such as solar energy. I encourage efforts to broaden the definition of renewable sources and, for that reason, I am also proposing an amendment to S. 388, the comprehensive national energy bill introduced by Senator Murkowski. The amendment would add agricultural and animal waste as a renewable energy resource listed under that bill. The use of modern technology to generate electricity from waste should not be overlooked. The tax credit is a important incentive to encourage its wider use. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this important initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, a priceless national treasure in the Pacific Northwest is in dire straits. Icons of our region, wild salmon and steelhead, teeter on the brink of extinction. These anadromous fish are one of the best examples of how nature works her magic and selects the best and the brightest for future generations. This heritage must not end. Our generation has the responsibility to assure that these fish live on and enrich our lives in the future. Despite several decades of work and a cost to taxpayers and electricity ratepayers of an estimated $3 billion, Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead have continued to decline to the point where they may soon become extinct. We must reverse this trend. We must not allow extinction to happen and must proceed quickly with an aggressive consensus plan of action that returns them to sustainable and fishable populations. I believe we can do so in a manner that honors the principles of state water sovereignty, states' rights, and private property rights. The economy of the Pacific Northwest is mainly vibrant and strong with some important exceptions, particularly in some more rural areas that depend on agriculture and natural resource industries. We must keep our Northwest economy strong and spread its strength throughout the entire region. This economy provides jobs for families and tax revenue to support important work, particularly the education of our children. Now, we face high energy costs and drought. Therefore, it is imperative that we make prudent choices now that will assure our future and quality of life in the Pacific Northwest. There are volumes of scientific research and theories on what needs to be done to bring these fish back from the brink of extinction. For years, I have studied documents, discussed science with experts and advocates, held hearings to learn about and publicize policy choices, and today I am here to lay out a funding proposal to make our efforts for salmon and steelhead recovery far more aggressive, comprehensive, and coordinated than they have ever been. The cost of restoring these fish has largely been borne by the citizens of the Northwest through the electricity rates they pay that fund the Northwest Power Planning Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. But because this is a national issue and because recovering the species is required by the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Government has an obligation to shoulder a significant portion of the financial responsibility for doing so. I will not support flow augmentation other than that agreed to by the State of Idaho, if any. The extensive political opposition to breaching the four lower Snake dams means that such a recommendation would put the region into economic and political gridlock in such a way that would prohibit further efforts to take achievable steps to save the salmon and steelhead. We now have a window of time, possibly up to 10 years, to exercise options and take steps toward recovering the fish before evaluation of dam breaching is then brought back to the table for further consideration. That means we have a brief opportunity to do things right. Otherwise, if we continue to spin our wheels or make wrong decisions about how to approach recovery, we will, in 5, 6, or 8 years be once again facing the difficult question of whether the region must breach the dams to save the fish. Even though we have not yet mastered the entire process required to recover these fish, it is very obvious that we do have an enormous amount of good information and a very long list of measures that we can do, right now. The problem is that we have done only part of what we can do. My proposal will commit the region and the Federal Government to take immediate coordinated and aggressive action that is known to benefit the fish while providing an agreed-upon mechanism for monitoring and subsequent adjustments. Specifically, I am recommending: Corps of Engineers, $159.8 million, additional funding for their Columbia River Fish Mitigation program. This program primarily funds the construction of fish passage systems and also provides dollars for the Corps to contract with the National Marine Fisheries Service to do anadromous fish research and monitoring. An increase for operations and maintenance funding (O&M), which will also provide the money needed to barge all fish, rather than trucking salmon around the dams. O&M funding is essential to keeping fish passage systems operable and mitigation programs running. Furthermore, we must study the potential benefit to modernizing the region's flood control management. Money for restoring estuary habitat in the Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay Estuaries. We have heard from all of the interests that we'll get a big bang for the buck for salmon and steelhead by restoring estuary habitat. National Marine Fisheries Service, $243.5 million, additional funding for the operations and maintenance of fish hatcheries. In the past, our hatcheries have provided sport fishing opportunity, but have not yet benefitted wild salmon and steelhead recovery. We need to reform our hatcheries to produce fish that are not susceptible to disease and predation, and support recovery goals. An increase for screening irrigation diversions. If we are to recover salmon and steelhead, we must keep juveniles in the river and out of irrigation systems. These diversion screens can cost up to $1 million apiece, which make them unaffordable to communities, irrigation districts, and individual farmers. Full funding for the Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. It is critical to the states of Idaho, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California as well as the Tribes that the federal government provide funding to help meet federal Endangered Species Act requirements for salmon and steelhead. Bureau of Reclamation, $25.0 million, funding to provide for the purchase of one more year of Idaho State-authorized flow augmentation, which is the 427,000 acre feet of water that is used to facilitate salmon and steelhead migration, plus $10 million to fund a water bank to store water for the purposes of fish passage and temperature reduction during low flow periods. The Bureau of Reclamation would also receive money to implement offsite mitigation measures called for in the Biological Opinion. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, $56.9 million, increases for habitat improvements, habitat conservation planning, landowner assistance, Section 7 consultation, and hatchery retrofits. In addition to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service has major responsibilities for screening irrigation diversions. Its screening program provides help to individual landowners in the form of technical assistance and money to pay for fish screens over irrigation diversions. There are many agencies with responsibilities for implementing salmon and steelhead recovery measures, and, frankly, these are just some of them. I also recommend funds for other agencies such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Environmental Protection Agency to implement their piece of the anadromous fish restoration program. This adds up to a grand total of $688.2 million. I anticipate that regional interests will examine the details of my proposal and will offer suggestions to improve this appropriations package. I encourage that discussion and look forward to the input that others will offer. There are processes currently underway in the region that could well result in changes to this proposal. It is my hope and expectation that this funding will change what has been a decades-long, torturous, and expensive process into a success that will make the Pacific Northwest a role model for how to recover endangered species. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House and Senate to provide funds to support a successful Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Ben Nelson in introducing legislation to designate the oak tree as America's National Tree. I am pleased to support an effort that recognizes the importance of trees in our lives and our nation's heritage. Trees provide a number of societal benefits and, as a renewable resource, can provide these benefits generation after generation when properly managed. From our nation's reliance on wood and wood products to the environmental benefits of cleaner air and water, trees are an integral part of our lives. Trees produce oxygen, lower ambient air temperature, release moisture into the air, retain particulates, create habitat for wildlife, and store carbon-dioxide. Trees can produce wind breaks, provide shade, and stabilize soils. Trees provide a multitude of products that are used in our daily lives. In a national effort that culminated in a nationwide vote, the public chose the oak tree as America's National Tree. I appreciate the public's involvement in this effort and recognize that the oak tree is America's most widespread hardwood. As an Idahoan, I am partial to Idaho's state tree, the White Pine, but support the people's choice. The ``King of Trees'' has long been valued for its shade, beauty, and lumber and is a fitting symbol of America's strength and diversity. I look forward to working with my colleagues to support the public's choice for a national tree. I appreciate Senator Nelson's efforts to add a national tree to the list of national observances, which includes our national anthem, motto, floral emblem, and march.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time from 4:15 to 6:15 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for postcloture debate. Further, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carper be recognized first for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by Senator Enzi for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Ben Nelson in introducing legislation to designate the oak tree as America's National Tree. I am pleased to support an effort that recognizes the importance of trees in our lives and our nation's heritage. Trees provide a number of societal benefits and, as a renewable resource, can provide these benefits generation after generation when properly managed. From our nation's reliance on wood and wood products to the environmental benefits of cleaner air and water, trees are an integral part of our lives. Trees produce oxygen, lower ambient air temperature, release moisture into the air, retain particulates, create habitat for wildlife, and store carbon-dioxide. Trees can produce wind breaks, provide shade, and stabilize soils. Trees provide a multitude of products that are used in our daily lives. In a national effort that culminated in a nationwide vote, the public chose the oak tree as America's National Tree. I appreciate the public's involvement in this effort and recognize that the oak tree is America's most widespread hardwood. As an Idahoan, I am partial to Idaho's state tree, the White Pine, but support the people's choice. The ``King of Trees'' has long been valued for its shade, beauty, and lumber and is a fitting symbol of America's strength and diversity. I look forward to working with my colleagues to support the public's choice for a national tree. I appreciate Senator Nelson's efforts to add a national tree to the list of national observances, which includes our national anthem, motto, floral emblem, and march.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on S. 350, the Senate's Superfund brownfields legislation. As most of those working on this issue know, I have been working on comprehensive Superfund reform essentially ever since I was elected to Congress, about 8\1/2\ years ago. This was a very difficult issue. In my opinion, we would have been best served if we had comprehensive Superfund reform of the entire Superfund statute, but given the political dynamics we face in the country and the Congress today, it was evident that we would not be able to achieve a comprehensive bill at this point in time, and the decision was made to move ahead with brownfields legislation this year. That was a decision I fought against last year but agreed to support this year, to see if we couldn't move ahead and achieve some of the objectives that have already been so well explained with regard to this legislation. Brownfields legislation is badly needed in this country, as we try to reform and clean up some of the areas that have been discussed by other Senators. One of the concerns many of us had, however, was that if we do a brownfields bill, we need to do one that truly works and not simply create another approach to the issue that runs into the same problems we have dealt with under the Superfund statute for so many years. In other words, we need to craft it so the effort to reclaim these areas and make them green again is not a failure and we don't simply pass legislation that creates another set of difficult, burdensome approaches to the issue. To effectively encourage more brownfields redevelopment programs, we have to provide the necessary resources, give the States the management and oversight responsibility within their borders, and ensure that developers are confident that their involvement will be truly welcomed and they will not simply pick up the liabilities already facing those who own the brownfields and work on the properties. All this has to be done in conjunction with the assurance that public health and the environment are being adequately protected. In that context, as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee handled this issue, a number of us had concerns that we hadn't yet achieved those objectives as well as we could. I commend the managers of this bill for working so well with us to address those issues in the interim since the bill was sent out of committee and is now being considered in the Senate. We have a managers' amendment that addresses a number of those concerns and that makes it possible for those of us who had problems with the way the bill was originally drafted to work with and support the bill at this point. The Senate has held many hearings on this legislation. A number of us have worked on this measure for many years. I will discuss some of the elements of progress that have been made since the bill was sent out of committee and as we now move forward with the managers' amendment. I am very pleased that we were successful in making these improvements. The first issue relates to State finality. For those who are not concerned with the issue, what we are talking about is a policy decision that says that State governments should be the ones that handle the management of the brownfields legislation. Instead of having a national, federally led and, many of us believe, dictate-driven decisionmaking process, we wanted to put together a system in which each individual State had the ability to interpret and implement the brownfields legislation with decisions going on in their own States. Many of us felt that State management and control would result in much better decisionmaking, as we would see it at the State and local level, than we would have if the decisionmaking were driven from the Federal level. It is a case of the State and local people having a much better understanding of the needs in their communities than those who are distant decisionmakers, not having the ability and understanding to truly address the issues as best they could. We needed to achieve that by still making sure the environmental objectives were in place. I believe the managers' amendment gives us an important stride forward in this effort. As the Senator from California, who just spoke, indicated, one of the protections built into this bill was the provision that if, as the State moves forward, an imminent and substantial endangerment is found to the environment or public health, then the Federal Government, through the EPA, can step in and take some remedial actions. Short of that imminent and substantial endangerment, it is the State's responsibility for action. One of the concerns that was debated in committee was whether we had adequately clarified it enough to make it clear that the EPA or the Federal administrators could not simply use any excuse they wanted in order to claim an imminent and substantial endangerment, and had to truly work with the States and step in at the Federal level only in those extreme cases in which it was clear that the State either did not have the resources or was not willing to implement the law. I believe that is where we have reached the compromise. The language included in the bill says imminent and substantial endangerment must be found by the Federal Government before it can step in and supersede a State's actions, which is the intent of all of us who have worked on this legislation. That gives the States truly an opportunity to have finality to their decisions about how to implement this law. Second, I am pleased that our efforts working with the managers of the bill were successful in nearly doubling the number of eligible brownfield sites under the program by expanding the bill's coverage. This improvement alone will help make this program a reality for many more communities around the country. In appreciation for the managers' efforts to improve the original bill, I intend to support the amendment today, and the bill with the amendment in place. I know there is still a lot of debate about whether we have made enough improvement in the legislation or whether we have made the bill good enough. The other body is going to be working on its proposals, and there will still be an effort to work with the administration, as the President, the House, and the Senate all work together to craft a brownfields bill that will ultimately be signed into law. I look forward to working with all of them to make sure that even further improvements and changes to the legislation can be made as we move through the legislative process. This effort today is a very strong effort, and I think a very good effort, to move forward on meaningful brownfields legislation. With the managers' amendment, as I said, enough improvements have been made that those of us who had concerns at the committee level, I think most, if not all of us, will be able to support the bill today. We will continue to work with the House and the President and with the managers of the bill in the Senate to see that we can make even additional improvements to the legislation as it moves forward in the legislative process. I think it is an important first step we are taking today, but it should be recognized as such--as an important but first step. With that, I conclude my remarks and yield back my remaining time.

Mr. CRAPO. I commend the Senator from Oklahoma for this amendment and am also interested in knowing if this interpretation is consistent with the intent of the chairman and the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize a national environmental grants program for small communities called Project SEARCH. I am particularly excited about the proposal because with each passing month, I have been hearing from new interested partners in helping with the legislation or have seen similar concepts advanced by others. 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 has been turned down or underfunded by traditional sources. The program would require no match from the recipients. Some of the major highlights of the program are: A simplified application process--no special grants coordinators required; No unsolicited bureaucratic intrusions into the decision-making process; 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 increasing 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 through the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, 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. Although the EPA subsequently insisted that grants be limited to water and wastewater projects, 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. Environmental officials from the state and EPA 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 only negative comments were from those who wished that the EPA had not limited the program to water and wastewater projects. 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 colleague 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 for small communities called Project SEARCH. I am particularly excited about the proposal because with each passing month, I have been hearing from new interested partners in helping with the legislation or have seen similar concepts advanced by others. 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 has been turned down or underfunded by traditional sources. The program would require no match from the recipients. Some of the major highlights of the program are: A simplified application process--no special grants coordinators required; No unsolicited bureaucratic intrusions into the decision-making process; 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 increasing 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 through the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, 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. Although the EPA subsequently insisted that grants be limited to water and wastewater projects, 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. Environmental officials from the state and EPA 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 only negative comments were from those who wished that the EPA had not limited the program to water and wastewater projects. 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 colleague 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 am pleased to introduce today the Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act of 2001. Last year, Senators Craig and Burns, and I introduced similar legislation. Although the legislation did not pass, we were able to successfully attach a modified one-year version of our bill to the Interior Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2001, prohibiting federal funds from being used to close any airstrips on lands administered by the Department of the Interior. The legislation I introduce today represents a comprehensive, long-term solution to the problem of backcountry airstrips being temporarily or permanently closed. This bill will preserve our nation's backcountry airstrips and require a public review and comment period before closure of these airstrips. Idaho is home to more than fifty backcountry airstrips and the state is known nationwide for its air access to wilderness and primitive areas. Unfortunately, many backcountry airstrips have been closed or rendered unserviceable through neglect by federal agencies responsible for land management. These closures occur without providing the public with a justification for such action or an opportunity to comment on them. Our bill would address this situation by preventing the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from permanently closing airstrips without first consulting with state aviation agencies and users. The legislation would also require that proposed closures would be published in the Federal Register with a ninety-day public comment period. The bill directs the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation with the FAA, to adopt a nationwide policy governing backcountry aviation. I would like to mention that Congressmen C.L. ``Butch'' Otter and Jim Hansen are also promoting backcountry aviation access in the other body. This bill and its House companion include a finding of fact that acknowledges the role of backcountry airstrips in supporting aerial firefighters. This finding was not included in the versions introduced last year but it pays tribute to those who joined in last summer's firefighting and disaster relief efforts. For aerial firefighters backcountry airstrips are analogous to fire engines in a firehouse. In addition, other general aviation craft depend on backcountry strips to provide a safe haven in the case of emergency. Without the airstrips, these pilots would have little chance of survival while attempting an emergency landing. Furthermore, access to the strips ensures a fundamental American service--universal postal delivery. Without access to backcountry airstrips, citizens who live and work in remote areas would not receive their mail. Pilots often discover that an airstrip has been closed only when they attempt to use it. This represents a grave danger to those who have not been made aware of an airstrip's closure. This bill would ensure that everyone with an interest in backcountry aviation remains informed of a proposed closure and is allowed to comment on it. This bill is simply about safety and general aviation access. It does not reopen airstrips that have already been closed, nor does it burden federal officials with the responsibility to operate and maintain these sites. In fact, pilots themselves regularly maintain backcountry strips. The Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act does not harm our forests or our wilderness areas. In fact, backcountry airstrips are regularly used by forest officials to maintain forests and trails, conduct ecological management projects, and produce aerial mapping. Airstrips are located in remote, rugged areas of the west where there are few visitors. Many landing strips have no more than 3-6 takeoffs and landings in a year, and are mainly used for emergency landings. When the Frank Church Wilderness Act was established in Idaho, it incorporated a provision that existing landing strips cannot be closed permanently or rendered unserviceable without the written consent of the State of Idaho. This bill extends the success of the Frank Church Wilderness Act provision nationwide to preserve airstrips in Idaho as well as other states. In Idaho, we have evolved into a cooperative relationship with federal land managers. I believe the rest of the country can benefit from this philosophy of cooperation. I urge my colleagues to join with us in our efforts to preserve the remaining backcountry strips. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act of 2001. Last year, Senators Craig and Burns, and I introduced similar legislation. Although the legislation did not pass, we were able to successfully attach a modified one-year version of our bill to the Interior Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2001, prohibiting federal funds from being used to close any airstrips on lands administered by the Department of the Interior. The legislation I introduce today represents a comprehensive, long-term solution to the problem of backcountry airstrips being temporarily or permanently closed. This bill will preserve our nation's backcountry airstrips and require a public review and comment period before closure of these airstrips. Idaho is home to more than fifty backcountry airstrips and the state is known nationwide for its air access to wilderness and primitive areas. Unfortunately, many backcountry airstrips have been closed or rendered unserviceable through neglect by federal agencies responsible for land management. These closures occur without providing the public with a justification for such action or an opportunity to comment on them. Our bill would address this situation by preventing the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from permanently closing airstrips without first consulting with state aviation agencies and users. The legislation would also require that proposed closures would be published in the Federal Register with a ninety-day public comment period. The bill directs the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation with the FAA, to adopt a nationwide policy governing backcountry aviation. I would like to mention that Congressmen C.L. ``Butch'' Otter and Jim Hansen are also promoting backcountry aviation access in the other body. This bill and its House companion include a finding of fact that acknowledges the role of backcountry airstrips in supporting aerial firefighters. This finding was not included in the versions introduced last year but it pays tribute to those who joined in last summer's firefighting and disaster relief efforts. For aerial firefighters backcountry airstrips are analogous to fire engines in a firehouse. In addition, other general aviation craft depend on backcountry strips to provide a safe haven in the case of emergency. Without the airstrips, these pilots would have little chance of survival while attempting an emergency landing. Furthermore, access to the strips ensures a fundamental American service--universal postal delivery. Without access to backcountry airstrips, citizens who live and work in remote areas would not receive their mail. Pilots often discover that an airstrip has been closed only when they attempt to use it. This represents a grave danger to those who have not been made aware of an airstrip's closure. This bill would ensure that everyone with an interest in backcountry aviation remains informed of a proposed closure and is allowed to comment on it. This bill is simply about safety and general aviation access. It does not reopen airstrips that have already been closed, nor does it burden federal officials with the responsibility to operate and maintain these sites. In fact, pilots themselves regularly maintain backcountry strips. The Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act does not harm our forests or our wilderness areas. In fact, backcountry airstrips are regularly used by forest officials to maintain forests and trails, conduct ecological management projects, and produce aerial mapping. Airstrips are located in remote, rugged areas of the west where there are few visitors. Many landing strips have no more than 3-6 takeoffs and landings in a year, and are mainly used for emergency landings. When the Frank Church Wilderness Act was established in Idaho, it incorporated a provision that existing landing strips cannot be closed permanently or rendered unserviceable without the written consent of the State of Idaho. This bill extends the success of the Frank Church Wilderness Act provision nationwide to preserve airstrips in Idaho as well as other states. In Idaho, we have evolved into a cooperative relationship with federal land managers. I believe the rest of the country can benefit from this philosophy of cooperation. I urge my colleagues to join with us in our efforts to preserve the remaining backcountry strips. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to commend fifteen students from Orofino High School in Orofino, ID: Zach Annen, Hannah Brandt, Joshua Corry, Diana Dangman, Nathan Dobyns, Emily Hall, Harmony Haveman, Jessica Hill, Piper Hope, Stacy Ray, Sarah Spaulding, Heather Veeder, Jessica Weeks, Brian Wilks; and Sam Young. These students will be in Washington, DC, April 21-23, 2001 to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. I also like to recognize their teacher, Cindy Wilson, for helping prepare these young students. ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' is one of the most extensive educational programs in the country. It has been developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress and consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the simulated congressional committee. The judges evaluate students on their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The 250th anniversary of James Madison's birth in 1751 offers an appropriate opportunity to examine his contributions to American constitutionalism and politics. To this end, the Center for Civic Education has collaborated with James Madison's home, Montpelier, to produce a supplement to ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution.'' The national finals will include questions on Madison and his legacy. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We the People . . .'' program has provided curricula materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than twenty-six and a half million students nationwide. The program provides students with a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers and by participating in other educational activities. The class from Orofino High School is currently conducting research and preparing for the upcoming national competition in Washington, DC. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the ``We the People'' national finals.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Geographic Adjustment Fairness Act of 2001. I am pleased to have the support of several of my colleagues including Senators Craig, Hagel, Cochran, Lincoln, Roberts, Helms, Dayton, and Hutchinson. These members recognize the need for adequate reimbursements for rural health facilities. I am also grateful to Representative Bart Stupak who will be introducing this legislation in the House. The Medicare Geographic Adjustment Fairness Act will amend the Social Security Act to redirect additional Medicare reimbursements to rural hospitals. Currently, hospitals throughout the country are losing Medicare reimbursements, which results in severe implications for surrounding communities. As you know, in an attempt to keep Medicare from consuming its limited reserves, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, BBA, which made sweeping changes in the manner that health care providers are reimbursed for services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. These were the most significant modifications in the history of the program. All of the problems with the BBA, whether hospitals, nursing facilities, home health agencies, or skilled nursing facilities, are especially acute in rural states, where Medicare payments are a bigger percentage of hospital revenues and profit margins are generally much lower. These facilities were already managed at a highly efficient level and had ``cut the fat out of the system.'' Therefore, the cuts implemented in the BBA hit the rural communities in Idaho and throughout the United States in a very significant and serious way. In the 106th Congress, the Senate did a tremendous job of bringing forth legislation that adjusted Medicare payments to health care providers hurt by cuts ordered in the BBA. While this was a meaningful step, the Senate must continue to address the inequities in the system. My bill would expand wage-index reclassification by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deem a hospital that has been reclassified for purposes of its inpatient wage-index to also reclassify for purposes of other services which are provider-based and for which payments are adjusted using a wage-index. In other words, this legislation would require the Secretary to use a hospital's reclassification wage-index to adjust payments for hospital outpatient, skilled nursing facility, home health, and other services, providing those entities are provider-based. This change should have been made in BBA when Congress required that prospective payment systems be established for these and other services. As such, this change would address an issue that has been left unaddressed for several years. It makes sense that, if a hospital has been granted reclassification by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board for certain inpatient services, it also be granted wage-index reclassification for outpatient and other services. It is estimated that this provision would help approximately 400 hospitals, 90 percent which are rural. Furthermore, this provision would be budget neutral. I know my colleagues in the Senate share my commitment of promoting access to health care services in rural areas. Expanding wage-index geographic reclassification will allow hospitals to recoup lost funds and use those funds to address patients' needs in an appropriate, effective, and meaningful way. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the Medicare Geographic Adjustment Fairness Act.