Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2001 in partnership with the Senator from Colorado, Senator Allard, and my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig. We all expect our federal agencies to operate professionally, efficiently, and with the interests of the American people at the forefront. To help ensure this commitment, several officials are charged with the responsibility of internally auditing and monitoring the operations and expenses of agency and department programs. These individuals are sometimes known as ``watch-dogs'' for their role in alerting the public and Congress to questionable activities. Within the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER, this duty is held by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is ultimately responsible for responding to public inquiries into the activities of OSWER and investigating those matters that warrant closer scrutiny. Originally established in 1984, the Ombudsman provides the public and Congress with an added measure of confidence that controversial waste control and emergency response actions by the EPA are being properly overseen and investigated where appropriate. Communities in Idaho, for their part, have twice welcomed the Ombudsman and his staff to our state to look into questionable decisions made by the EPA under the Superfund statute. In both cases, the Ombudsman has made extraordinary efforts to keep the public informed on the issues and a part of the investigations. Each time, the people of Idaho have shown collective relief that someone of the Ombudsman's stature and expertise has become involved in cleanup decisions in our state. In both cases, the Ombudsman has demonstrated an ability to understand the will of the community and, despite strong agency resistance, to point out policy decisions for cleanups that were not justified or in the public interest. In 1988, the standing authority of the Ombudsman expired, leaving the office and investigations in a precarious position. In essence, while the Ombudsman endured as an ``at will'' employee of the EPA, the Office's independence and authority have continuously been eroded by the agency. Today, the Ombudsman must get approval for new investigation and budgetary needs from the very people he and his staff must monitor. With these restrictions on the Ombudsman's functions, the public has become increasingly alarmed by the loss of a true internal watch-dog of EPA activities. The Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2001 would help restore public confidence. First and foremost, it would reestablish the statutory recognition of the Office of Ombudsman within the OSWER function of the EPA. Second, it would clarify the operational guidelines and authorities of the Ombudsman to collect information on matters requested by the public and investigate questionable agency activities. Finally, the measure would create a separate budget authority, free from the possible influence of those that may be subject to investigations. This legislation is a careful balance between the need to restore public confidence in the independence of the Ombudsman and the need to ensure discretion and accountability in investigations conducted by the Ombudsman. I invite the Administration to engage us in an effort to recreate the Ombudsman in the model originally envisioned by Congress in the 1980s when the office was established. Our work together will help ensure the American people that EPA OSWER programs are chosen based on merits, functioning well, and are conducted in the interests of the public health and the environment. I would like to take a moment to congratulate my colleague, Senator Allard, for his partnership in this effort. His leadership on this issue has helped raise public and congressional attention when few others recognized the importance of this cause. I salute him for his diligence in advancing this debate, and I have welcomed the opportunity to work with him on this legislation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2001 in partnership with the Senator from Colorado, Senator Allard, and my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig. We all expect our federal agencies to operate professionally, efficiently, and with the interests of the American people at the forefront. To help ensure this commitment, several officials are charged with the responsibility of internally auditing and monitoring the operations and expenses of agency and department programs. These individuals are sometimes known as ``watch-dogs'' for their role in alerting the public and Congress to questionable activities. Within the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER, this duty is held by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is ultimately responsible for responding to public inquiries into the activities of OSWER and investigating those matters that warrant closer scrutiny. Originally established in 1984, the Ombudsman provides the public and Congress with an added measure of confidence that controversial waste control and emergency response actions by the EPA are being properly overseen and investigated where appropriate. Communities in Idaho, for their part, have twice welcomed the Ombudsman and his staff to our state to look into questionable decisions made by the EPA under the Superfund statute. In both cases, the Ombudsman has made extraordinary efforts to keep the public informed on the issues and a part of the investigations. Each time, the people of Idaho have shown collective relief that someone of the Ombudsman's stature and expertise has become involved in cleanup decisions in our state. In both cases, the Ombudsman has demonstrated an ability to understand the will of the community and, despite strong agency resistance, to point out policy decisions for cleanups that were not justified or in the public interest. In 1988, the standing authority of the Ombudsman expired, leaving the office and investigations in a precarious position. In essence, while the Ombudsman endured as an ``at will'' employee of the EPA, the Office's independence and authority have continuously been eroded by the agency. Today, the Ombudsman must get approval for new investigation and budgetary needs from the very people he and his staff must monitor. With these restrictions on the Ombudsman's functions, the public has become increasingly alarmed by the loss of a true internal watch-dog of EPA activities. The Ombudsman Reauthorization Act of 2001 would help restore public confidence. First and foremost, it would reestablish the statutory recognition of the Office of Ombudsman within the OSWER function of the EPA. Second, it would clarify the operational guidelines and authorities of the Ombudsman to collect information on matters requested by the public and investigate questionable agency activities. Finally, the measure would create a separate budget authority, free from the possible influence of those that may be subject to investigations. This legislation is a careful balance between the need to restore public confidence in the independence of the Ombudsman and the need to ensure discretion and accountability in investigations conducted by the Ombudsman. I invite the Administration to engage us in an effort to recreate the Ombudsman in the model originally envisioned by Congress in the 1980s when the office was established. Our work together will help ensure the American people that EPA OSWER programs are chosen based on merits, functioning well, and are conducted in the interests of the public health and the environment. I would like to take a moment to congratulate my colleague, Senator Allard, for his partnership in this effort. His leadership on this issue has helped raise public and congressional attention when few others recognized the importance of this cause. I salute him for his diligence in advancing this debate, and I have welcomed the opportunity to work with him on this legislation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the birth of a fine young man, William Blue Hollier. William was born on Monday, March 5th, making him a couple of weeks old today. He is the first child of Will and Alyssa Hollier. Will serves as my Administrative Assistant and has been an invaluable part of my staff for over 8 years. I'm happy to report that mother, father, and baby are doing well, although Will and Alyssa are probably getting used to fewer hours of sleep. Young William is the grandson of Charles and Judy Hollier of Lafayette, LA; Judy Myers of New Orleans; and Bob and Cheri Knorr of Sawyer, ND. His great-grandparents, Henry and Mary Myers of Opelousas, LA; Art Odegard of Minot, ND; and Walt Knorr of Devil's Lake, ND, also join me in welcoming this baby. It is always a joyous event to bring a new family member into the world. William has been much-anticipated and has held a place in the hearts of his parents and family for many months now as they have awaited his arrival. As the father of five myself, I know that Will and Alyssa are in for a most remarkable, frustrating, rewarding, and exciting experience of their lives. William Blue will make certain of that. Our best wishes go out to the Hollier family on this most auspicious occasion.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2001. This bill would help preserve the amount of radio spectrum allocated to the Amateur Radio Service during this era of dramatic change in our telecommunications system. I am pleased to be joined today in this bi-partisan effort by Senator Daniel Akaka. Organized radio amateurs, more commonly known as `ham' operators, through formal agreements with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Weather Service, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other government and private relief services, provide emergency communication when regular channels are disrupted by disaster. In Idaho, these trained volunteers have performed tasks as various as helping to rescue stranded back-country hikers, organizing cleanup efforts after the Payette River flooded, and helping the Forest Service communicate during major forest fires. In other communities, they may be found monitoring tornado touchdowns in the Midwest, helping authorities reestablish communication after a hurricane in the Gulf or sending ``health and welfare'' messages following an earthquake on the West Coast. Not only do they provide these services using their own equipment and without compensation, but they also give their personal time to participate in regular organized training exercises. In addition to emergency communication, amateur radio enthusiasts use their spectrum allocations to experiment with and develop new circuitry and techniques for increasing the effectiveness of the precious natural resource of radio spectrum for all Americans. Much of the electronic technology we now take for granted is rooted in amateur radio experimentation. Moreover, amateur radio has long provided the first technical training for youngsters who grow up to be America's scientists and engineers. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to conduct spectrum auctions to raise revenues. Some of that revenue may come from the auction of current amateur radio spectrum. This bill simply requires the FCC to provide the Amateur Radio Service with equivalent replacement spectrum if it reallocates and auctions any of the Service's current spectrum. The Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2001 will protect these vital functions while also maintaining the flexibility of the FCC to manage the nation's telecommunications infrastructure effectively. It will not interfere with the ability of commercial telecommunications services to seek the spectrum allocations they require. I ask my colleagues to join the more than 670,000 U.S. licensed radio amateurs in supporting this measure and welcome their co-sponsorship. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2001. This bill would help preserve the amount of radio spectrum allocated to the Amateur Radio Service during this era of dramatic change in our telecommunications system. I am pleased to be joined today in this bi-partisan effort by Senator Daniel Akaka. Organized radio amateurs, more commonly known as `ham' operators, through formal agreements with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Weather Service, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other government and private relief services, provide emergency communication when regular channels are disrupted by disaster. In Idaho, these trained volunteers have performed tasks as various as helping to rescue stranded back-country hikers, organizing cleanup efforts after the Payette River flooded, and helping the Forest Service communicate during major forest fires. In other communities, they may be found monitoring tornado touchdowns in the Midwest, helping authorities reestablish communication after a hurricane in the Gulf or sending ``health and welfare'' messages following an earthquake on the West Coast. Not only do they provide these services using their own equipment and without compensation, but they also give their personal time to participate in regular organized training exercises. In addition to emergency communication, amateur radio enthusiasts use their spectrum allocations to experiment with and develop new circuitry and techniques for increasing the effectiveness of the precious natural resource of radio spectrum for all Americans. Much of the electronic technology we now take for granted is rooted in amateur radio experimentation. Moreover, amateur radio has long provided the first technical training for youngsters who grow up to be America's scientists and engineers. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to conduct spectrum auctions to raise revenues. Some of that revenue may come from the auction of current amateur radio spectrum. This bill simply requires the FCC to provide the Amateur Radio Service with equivalent replacement spectrum if it reallocates and auctions any of the Service's current spectrum. The Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2001 will protect these vital functions while also maintaining the flexibility of the FCC to manage the nation's telecommunications infrastructure effectively. It will not interfere with the ability of commercial telecommunications services to seek the spectrum allocations they require. I ask my colleagues to join the more than 670,000 U.S. licensed radio amateurs in supporting this measure and welcome their co-sponsorship. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Professional Development Enhancement Act to strengthen and improve professional development opportunities for teachers. Improving the quality of teaching in America's classrooms has been a priority of mine since the day my oldest child walked through the door of her public school. While I know that my five children were, and still are, fortunate to have outstanding teachers, I am keenly aware that others are not so fortunate. Nothing can replace qualified teachers with high standards and a desire to teach. Coupled with ongoing professional development opportunities, our teachers are equipped to positively influence and inspire every child in their classroom. Teachers are the backbone of education. They are our most important assets, therefore, we must continue to give them the support and appreciation they deserve. As Congress takes up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the focus will shift to the recruitment and retention of good teachers. That is why my legislation is so essential. While using no new funds, the bill would strengthen existing language by making recommendations on current mentoring programs. My proposal outlines the principal components of mentoring programs that would improve the experience of new teachers, as well as provide incentives for alternative teacher certification and licensure programs. Mentoring is a concept that has been around for years, but only recently have educators and administrators begun to talk about its real benefits. We all know that good teachers are not created over night. It is only after years of dedication and discipline that teachers themselves admit that they truly feel comfortable in their classrooms. Unfortunately, though, we see the highest level of turn-over among beginning teachers, one-third of teachers leave the profession within 5 years. Our goal must be to work with new teachers to assure they are confident in their roles and to secure their participation in the teaching profession for years to come. My legislation will ensure program quality and accountability by requiring that teachers mentor their peers who teach the same subject, and activities are consistent with state standards. Under the supervision and guidance of a senior colleague, teachers are more likely to develop skills and achieve a higher level of proficiency. The confidence and experience gained during this time will improve the quality of instruction, which in turn will improve overall student achievement. Attracting and retaining quality teachers is a difficult task, especially in rural impoverished areas. As a result, teacher shortage and high turnover are commonplace in rural communities in almost every state in the nation. In addition to retention, recruitment must also be at the core of our efforts. My bill will provide incentives, and grant states the flexibility to establish, expand, or improve alternative teacher certification and licensure programs. I do not expect this legislation to solve all the problems confronting our schools today. But, I do see it as a practical way to help make our schools stronger by providing teachers with the tools to grow as professionals. I urge my colleagues to support the Professional Development Enhancement Act and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the ESEA.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Training Teachers for Technology Act of 2001, a bill to allow states to provide assistance to local educational agencies to develop innovative professional development programs that train teachers to use technology in the classroom. As your know, education technology can significantly improve student achievement. Congress has recognized this fact by continually voting to dramatically increase funding for education technology. In fact, in just the programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA. Federal support has grown from $52.6 million in Fiscal Year 1995, to over $700 million just five years later. As we debate the upcoming reauthorization of ESEA, I will be working to support legislation that builds on the strong educational technology infrastructure already in place in school districts in nearly every state. But we need to do more than simply place computers in classrooms. We need to provide our educators with the skills they need to incorporate evolving educational technology in the classroom. My bill does exactly that. It will encourage states to develop and implement professional development programs that train teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. Effective teaching strategies must incorporate educational technology if we are to ensure that all children have the skills they need to compete in a high-tech workplace. An investment in professional development for our teachers is an investment in our children and our future. Specifically, the legislation I am introducing today would allow local education agencies to apply once for all teacher training technology programs within the National Challenge Grants for Technology in Education, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, and Star Schools. The U.S. General Accounting Office reported that there are more than thirty federal programs, administered by five different federal agencies, which provide funding for education technology to K- 12 schools. My measure would reduce the financial and paperwork burden to primarily small, poor, rural districts that don't have the resources to hire full time staff to handle grant writing for all of these different programs. Instead, schools would be able to apply once for federal technology assistance, and then combine their funds to develop a comprehensive program that integrates technology directly into the curriculum and provides professional development for teachers. My bill adopts the principles of simplicity and flexibility. This is what schools are asking for, so this is what we should give them. My legislation helps those smaller schools that might ordinarily be unfairly disadvantaged through traditional grant programs. Idaho's public schools are excelling rapidly in their understanding of how technology can enhance the teaching and learning environments in Idaho's classrooms. I would like to extend this same empowerment to public schools throughout the nation. Investing in technology training for teachers will make a significant difference in the lives of our children. An opportunity has arisen where we, Members of the United States Senate, are able to help many students who face unique challenges and uncertain futures. I hope you agree that a strong technology component for all students is necessary and essential in facilitating student achievement, and that through proper professional development our children will be provided an unparalleled opportunity for a better education. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the ESEA.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Education Initiative Act, which makes Federal grant programs more flexible in order to help school districts in rural communities. Serving to compliment President George W. Bush's education proposal, school districts participating in this initiative are expected to meet high accountability standards. Targeting only those school districts in rural communities with fewer than 600 students, this proposal reaches out to small, rural districts that are often disadvantaged through our current formula-driven grant system. There is tremendous need in rural states like Idaho because many of the traditional formula grants do not reach our small rural schools. And what money does reach these schools is in amounts insufficient for affecting true curriculum initiatives. In other works, schools may not receive enough funding from any individual grant to carry out meaningful activities. My proposal addresses this problem by allowing districts to combine funds from four independent programs to accomplish locally chosen educational goals. Under this plan, districts would be able to use their aggregate funds to support local or statewide education reform efforts intended to improve the achievement of elementary and secondary school students. I am asking for an authorization of $125 million for small rural and poor rural schools, a small price that could produce large results. Any school district participating in this initiative would have to meet high accountability standards. It would have to show significant statistical improvement in reading and math scores, based on state assessment standards. Schools that fail to show demonstrable progress will not be eligible for continued funding. In other words, this plan rewards success, while injecting accountability and flexibility. In reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, Congress has an extraordinary opportunity to change the course of education. We must embrace this opportunity by supporting creative and innovative reform proposals, like the one that I have introduced here today. I am committed to working in the best interest of our children to develop an education system that is the best in the world. The Rural Education Initiative moves us in the right direction and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure. I urge the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to incorporate this provision into the upcoming ESEA bill.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Training Teachers for Technology Act of 2001, a bill to allow states to provide assistance to local educational agencies to develop innovative professional development programs that train teachers to use technology in the classroom. As your know, education technology can significantly improve student achievement. Congress has recognized this fact by continually voting to dramatically increase funding for education technology. In fact, in just the programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA. Federal support has grown from $52.6 million in Fiscal Year 1995, to over $700 million just five years later. As we debate the upcoming reauthorization of ESEA, I will be working to support legislation that builds on the strong educational technology infrastructure already in place in school districts in nearly every state. But we need to do more than simply place computers in classrooms. We need to provide our educators with the skills they need to incorporate evolving educational technology in the classroom. My bill does exactly that. It will encourage states to develop and implement professional development programs that train teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. Effective teaching strategies must incorporate educational technology if we are to ensure that all children have the skills they need to compete in a high-tech workplace. An investment in professional development for our teachers is an investment in our children and our future. Specifically, the legislation I am introducing today would allow local education agencies to apply once for all teacher training technology programs within the National Challenge Grants for Technology in Education, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, and Star Schools. The U.S. General Accounting Office reported that there are more than thirty federal programs, administered by five different federal agencies, which provide funding for education technology to K- 12 schools. My measure would reduce the financial and paperwork burden to primarily small, poor, rural districts that don't have the resources to hire full time staff to handle grant writing for all of these different programs. Instead, schools would be able to apply once for federal technology assistance, and then combine their funds to develop a comprehensive program that integrates technology directly into the curriculum and provides professional development for teachers. My bill adopts the principles of simplicity and flexibility. This is what schools are asking for, so this is what we should give them. My legislation helps those smaller schools that might ordinarily be unfairly disadvantaged through traditional grant programs. Idaho's public schools are excelling rapidly in their understanding of how technology can enhance the teaching and learning environments in Idaho's classrooms. I would like to extend this same empowerment to public schools throughout the nation. Investing in technology training for teachers will make a significant difference in the lives of our children. An opportunity has arisen where we, Members of the United States Senate, are able to help many students who face unique challenges and uncertain futures. I hope you agree that a strong technology component for all students is necessary and essential in facilitating student achievement, and that through proper professional development our children will be provided an unparalleled opportunity for a better education. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the ESEA.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Education Initiative Act, which makes Federal grant programs more flexible in order to help school districts in rural communities. Serving to compliment President George W. Bush's education proposal, school districts participating in this initiative are expected to meet high accountability standards. Targeting only those school districts in rural communities with fewer than 600 students, this proposal reaches out to small, rural districts that are often disadvantaged through our current formula-driven grant system. There is tremendous need in rural states like Idaho because many of the traditional formula grants do not reach our small rural schools. And what money does reach these schools is in amounts insufficient for affecting true curriculum initiatives. In other works, schools may not receive enough funding from any individual grant to carry out meaningful activities. My proposal addresses this problem by allowing districts to combine funds from four independent programs to accomplish locally chosen educational goals. Under this plan, districts would be able to use their aggregate funds to support local or statewide education reform efforts intended to improve the achievement of elementary and secondary school students. I am asking for an authorization of $125 million for small rural and poor rural schools, a small price that could produce large results. Any school district participating in this initiative would have to meet high accountability standards. It would have to show significant statistical improvement in reading and math scores, based on state assessment standards. Schools that fail to show demonstrable progress will not be eligible for continued funding. In other words, this plan rewards success, while injecting accountability and flexibility. In reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, Congress has an extraordinary opportunity to change the course of education. We must embrace this opportunity by supporting creative and innovative reform proposals, like the one that I have introduced here today. I am committed to working in the best interest of our children to develop an education system that is the best in the world. The Rural Education Initiative moves us in the right direction and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure. I urge the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to incorporate this provision into the upcoming ESEA bill.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Professional Development Enhancement Act to strengthen and improve professional development opportunities for teachers. Improving the quality of teaching in America's classrooms has been a priority of mine since the day my oldest child walked through the door of her public school. While I know that my five children were, and still are, fortunate to have outstanding teachers, I am keenly aware that others are not so fortunate. Nothing can replace qualified teachers with high standards and a desire to teach. Coupled with ongoing professional development opportunities, our teachers are equipped to positively influence and inspire every child in their classroom. Teachers are the backbone of education. They are our most important assets, therefore, we must continue to give them the support and appreciation they deserve. As Congress takes up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the focus will shift to the recruitment and retention of good teachers. That is why my legislation is so essential. While using no new funds, the bill would strengthen existing language by making recommendations on current mentoring programs. My proposal outlines the principal components of mentoring programs that would improve the experience of new teachers, as well as provide incentives for alternative teacher certification and licensure programs. Mentoring is a concept that has been around for years, but only recently have educators and administrators begun to talk about its real benefits. We all know that good teachers are not created over night. It is only after years of dedication and discipline that teachers themselves admit that they truly feel comfortable in their classrooms. Unfortunately, though, we see the highest level of turn-over among beginning teachers, one-third of teachers leave the profession within 5 years. Our goal must be to work with new teachers to assure they are confident in their roles and to secure their participation in the teaching profession for years to come. My legislation will ensure program quality and accountability by requiring that teachers mentor their peers who teach the same subject, and activities are consistent with state standards. Under the supervision and guidance of a senior colleague, teachers are more likely to develop skills and achieve a higher level of proficiency. The confidence and experience gained during this time will improve the quality of instruction, which in turn will improve overall student achievement. Attracting and retaining quality teachers is a difficult task, especially in rural impoverished areas. As a result, teacher shortage and high turnover are commonplace in rural communities in almost every state in the nation. In addition to retention, recruitment must also be at the core of our efforts. My bill will provide incentives, and grant states the flexibility to establish, expand, or improve alternative teacher certification and licensure programs. I do not expect this legislation to solve all the problems confronting our schools today. But, I do see it as a practical way to help make our schools stronger by providing teachers with the tools to grow as professionals. I urge my colleagues to support the Professional Development Enhancement Act and work for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the ESEA.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Water Adjudication Fee Fairness Act of 2001. This bill would require the federal government to pay the same filing fees and costs associated with state water rights' adjudications as is currently required of states and private parties. To establish relative rights to water--water that is the lifeblood of many states, particularly in the west--states must conduct lengthy, complicated, and expensive proceedings in water rights' adjudications. In 1952, Congress recognized the necessity and benefit of requiring federal claims to be adjudicated in these state proceedings by adopting the McCarran amendment. The McCarran amendment waives the sovereign immunity of the United States and requires the federal government to submit to state court jurisdiction and to file water rights' claims in state general adjudication proceedings. These federal claims are typically among the most complicated and largest of claims in state adjudications, and federal agencies are often the primary beneficiary of adjudication proceedings where states officially quantify and record their water rights. However, in 1992, the United States Supreme Court held that, under existing law, the U.S. need not pay fees for processing federal claims. When the United States does not pay a proportionate share of the costs associated with adjudications, the burden of funding the proceedings unfairly shifts to other water users and often delays completion of the adjudications by diminishing the resources necessary to complete them. Delays in completing adjudications result in the inability to protect private and public property interests or determine how much unappropriated water may remain to satisfy important environmental and economic development priorities. Additionally, because they are not subject to fees and costs like other water users in the adjudication, federal agencies can file questionable claims without facing court costs, inflating the number of their claims for future negotiation purposes. This creates an unlevel playing field favoring the federal agencies and places a further financial and resources burden on the system. For example, in the Snake River Basin adjudication, which is in Idaho and is probably the largest water adjudication proceeding in the country, the United States Forest Service filed more than 3,700 federal claims. The Idaho Department of Water Resources expended thousands of dollars giving notice to all other claimants, additionally the State of Idaho and private claimants spent over $800,000 preparing objections to the Federal Service's claims. On the eve of the objection deadline, the US withdrew all but 71 of the claims--the Department of Justice's explanation: litigation strategy. This example is not an isolated incident. At best, the taxpayers and states should not be forced to incur these costs simply because the agency does not take the time to seriously evaluate its claims. At worst, the taxpayers should not bear the brunt of the federal government's Machiavellian tactics. I recognize that the federal government has a legitimate right to some reserved water rights; however, the federal government should play by the same rules as the states and other private users. The Water Adjudication Fee Fairness Act is legislation that remedies this situation by subjecting the United States, when party to a general adjudication, to the same fees and costs as state and private users in water rights adjudications. This measure has the full support of the Western States Water Council and the Western Governor's Association. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting water users, taxpayers, the states, and welcome their co- sponsorship. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Water Adjudication Fee Fairness Act of 2001. This bill would require the federal government to pay the same filing fees and costs associated with state water rights' adjudications as is currently required of states and private parties. To establish relative rights to water--water that is the lifeblood of many states, particularly in the west--states must conduct lengthy, complicated, and expensive proceedings in water rights' adjudications. In 1952, Congress recognized the necessity and benefit of requiring federal claims to be adjudicated in these state proceedings by adopting the McCarran amendment. The McCarran amendment waives the sovereign immunity of the United States and requires the federal government to submit to state court jurisdiction and to file water rights' claims in state general adjudication proceedings. These federal claims are typically among the most complicated and largest of claims in state adjudications, and federal agencies are often the primary beneficiary of adjudication proceedings where states officially quantify and record their water rights. However, in 1992, the United States Supreme Court held that, under existing law, the U.S. need not pay fees for processing federal claims. When the United States does not pay a proportionate share of the costs associated with adjudications, the burden of funding the proceedings unfairly shifts to other water users and often delays completion of the adjudications by diminishing the resources necessary to complete them. Delays in completing adjudications result in the inability to protect private and public property interests or determine how much unappropriated water may remain to satisfy important environmental and economic development priorities. Additionally, because they are not subject to fees and costs like other water users in the adjudication, federal agencies can file questionable claims without facing court costs, inflating the number of their claims for future negotiation purposes. This creates an unlevel playing field favoring the federal agencies and places a further financial and resources burden on the system. For example, in the Snake River Basin adjudication, which is in Idaho and is probably the largest water adjudication proceeding in the country, the United States Forest Service filed more than 3,700 federal claims. The Idaho Department of Water Resources expended thousands of dollars giving notice to all other claimants, additionally the State of Idaho and private claimants spent over $800,000 preparing objections to the Federal Service's claims. On the eve of the objection deadline, the US withdrew all but 71 of the claims--the Department of Justice's explanation: litigation strategy. This example is not an isolated incident. At best, the taxpayers and states should not be forced to incur these costs simply because the agency does not take the time to seriously evaluate its claims. At worst, the taxpayers should not bear the brunt of the federal government's Machiavellian tactics. I recognize that the federal government has a legitimate right to some reserved water rights; however, the federal government should play by the same rules as the states and other private users. The Water Adjudication Fee Fairness Act is legislation that remedies this situation by subjecting the United States, when party to a general adjudication, to the same fees and costs as state and private users in water rights adjudications. This measure has the full support of the Western States Water Council and the Western Governor's Association. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting water users, taxpayers, the states, and welcome their co- sponsorship. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State Water Sovereignty Protection Act, a bill to preserve the authority of the States over waters within their boundaries, to delegate the authority of the Congress to the States to regular water, and for other purposes. Since 1866, Congress has recognized and deferred to the States the authority to allocate and administer water within their borders. The Supreme Court has confirmed that this is an appropriate role for the States. Additionally, in 1952, the Congress passed the McCarran amendment which provides for the adjudication of State and Federal Water claims in State water courts. However, despite both judicial and legislative edicts, I am deeply concerned that the administration, Federal agencies, and some in the Congress are setting the stage for ignoring long established statutory provisions concerning State water rights and State water contracts. The Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Land Policy Management Act, and wilderness designations have all been vehicles used to erode State sovereignty over it water. It is imperative that States maintain sovereignty over management and control of their water and water systems. All rights to water or reservations of rights for any purpose in States should be subject to the substantive and procedural laws of that State, not the Federal Government. To protect State water rights, I am introducing the State Water Sovereignty Protection Act. The State Water Sovereignty Protection Act provide that whenever the United States seeks to appropriate water or acquire a water right, it will be subject to State procedural and substantive water law. The Act further holds that States control the water within their boundaries and that the Federal Government may exercise management or control over water only in compliance with State law. Finally, in any administrative or judicial proceeding in which the United States participates pursuant to the McCarran Amendment, the United States is subject to all costs and fees to the same extend as costs and fees may be imposed on a private party.

Mr. CRAPO

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

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 2 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State Water Sovereignty Protection Act, a bill to preserve the authority of the States over waters within their boundaries, to delegate the authority of the Congress to the States to regular water, and for other purposes. Since 1866, Congress has recognized and deferred to the States the authority to allocate and administer water within their borders. The Supreme Court has confirmed that this is an appropriate role for the States. Additionally, in 1952, the Congress passed the McCarran amendment which provides for the adjudication of State and Federal Water claims in State water courts. However, despite both judicial and legislative edicts, I am deeply concerned that the administration, Federal agencies, and some in the Congress are setting the stage for ignoring long established statutory provisions concerning State water rights and State water contracts. The Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Land Policy Management Act, and wilderness designations have all been vehicles used to erode State sovereignty over it water. It is imperative that States maintain sovereignty over management and control of their water and water systems. All rights to water or reservations of rights for any purpose in States should be subject to the substantive and procedural laws of that State, not the Federal Government. To protect State water rights, I am introducing the State Water Sovereignty Protection Act. The State Water Sovereignty Protection Act provide that whenever the United States seeks to appropriate water or acquire a water right, it will be subject to State procedural and substantive water law. The Act further holds that States control the water within their boundaries and that the Federal Government may exercise management or control over water only in compliance with State law. Finally, in any administrative or judicial proceeding in which the United States participates pursuant to the McCarran Amendment, the United States is subject to all costs and fees to the same extend as costs and fees may be imposed on a private party.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is an important step in continuing to recognize the victims of dating violence. The bill I am introducing today would allow victims of dating violence to qualify for federal legal assistance grants authorized under the Violence Against Women Act. Dating violence is a predominately little-known and misunderstood aspect of domestic violence. Historically, domestic violence laws have only been applied in cases where the victims have been married or cohabitating with the abuser, or where the couple shares a child together. Unfortunately, this criteria ignores the equally dangerous violence that can occur in dating relationships. Victims of domestic violence are victims regardless of their relationship to the abuser. These victims face the same trauma and the same manipulation as every other domestic violence victim. As Congress focuses its attention on providing necessary assistance to the states for prevention and treatment of domestic violence, we must not allow victims of dating violence to be left behind. The lack of recourse for victims of dating violence was brought to my attention through a tragic incident in my home State of Idaho. In December 1999, Cassie Dehl, a seventeen-year-old girl from Soda Springs, Idaho, was killed in an accident involving her abusive boyfriend. Despite documentation of years of vicious and life- threatening abuse, Cassie's parents were unable to obtain legal protection for their daughter because neither Federal or Idaho domestic violence law applied to teenage dating relationships. Although the abuse was evident and the need for assistance was clear, no one was able to offer Cassie the help that was needed to prevent this senseless act. Last year, Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized a number of important domestic violence programs under the Violence Against Women Act. In addition to continuing the existing programs, the VAWA reauthorization included two new provisions of particular importance. First, a legal definition of dating violence was created, the first such definition under federal law. Secondly, a new grant program to provide civil legal assistance to victims of domestic violence was authorized. Unfortunately, while many of the existing VAWA programs were expanded to include dating violence, the new legal assistance grant was not. My legislation will correct this discrepancy. The victims of dating violence require and deserve the same legal assistance given to other victims of domestic violence. The ability to obtain a legal protection order or pursue other legal remedies can be the difference in a victim being able to break the cycle of oppressive abuse and regain control of their life. Under my legislation, victims of dating violence will have the same legal standing as all other victims of domestic violence when seeking civil legal assistance. I applaud Congress for coming together last year to bring attention to the continuing problem of domestic violence. In order to build upon the advances we made last year, I urge my colleagues to support my legislation that takes another step toward achieving an equal status for victims of dating violence. 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 introduce legislation that is an important step in continuing to recognize the victims of dating violence. The bill I am introducing today would allow victims of dating violence to qualify for federal legal assistance grants authorized under the Violence Against Women Act. Dating violence is a predominately little-known and misunderstood aspect of domestic violence. Historically, domestic violence laws have only been applied in cases where the victims have been married or cohabitating with the abuser, or where the couple shares a child together. Unfortunately, this criteria ignores the equally dangerous violence that can occur in dating relationships. Victims of domestic violence are victims regardless of their relationship to the abuser. These victims face the same trauma and the same manipulation as every other domestic violence victim. As Congress focuses its attention on providing necessary assistance to the states for prevention and treatment of domestic violence, we must not allow victims of dating violence to be left behind. The lack of recourse for victims of dating violence was brought to my attention through a tragic incident in my home State of Idaho. In December 1999, Cassie Dehl, a seventeen-year-old girl from Soda Springs, Idaho, was killed in an accident involving her abusive boyfriend. Despite documentation of years of vicious and life- threatening abuse, Cassie's parents were unable to obtain legal protection for their daughter because neither Federal or Idaho domestic violence law applied to teenage dating relationships. Although the abuse was evident and the need for assistance was clear, no one was able to offer Cassie the help that was needed to prevent this senseless act. Last year, Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized a number of important domestic violence programs under the Violence Against Women Act. In addition to continuing the existing programs, the VAWA reauthorization included two new provisions of particular importance. First, a legal definition of dating violence was created, the first such definition under federal law. Secondly, a new grant program to provide civil legal assistance to victims of domestic violence was authorized. Unfortunately, while many of the existing VAWA programs were expanded to include dating violence, the new legal assistance grant was not. My legislation will correct this discrepancy. The victims of dating violence require and deserve the same legal assistance given to other victims of domestic violence. The ability to obtain a legal protection order or pursue other legal remedies can be the difference in a victim being able to break the cycle of oppressive abuse and regain control of their life. Under my legislation, victims of dating violence will have the same legal standing as all other victims of domestic violence when seeking civil legal assistance. I applaud Congress for coming together last year to bring attention to the continuing problem of domestic violence. In order to build upon the advances we made last year, I urge my colleagues to support my legislation that takes another step toward achieving an equal status for victims of dating violence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I have been here on the floor listening to the debate. I am very pleased that we are engaging in a real debate about the possibility of meaningful tax relief. I have worked since I was elected to Congress, about 8\1/2\ years ago, to try to reform the Tax Code. I hope our debate over reducing taxes does not cause us to lose sight of the fact that we have to ultimately reform our Tax Code. Taxes are not only too high but too complicated, and the cost of simply complying with the Tax Code is a burden the people must see removed. Tax relief. Why are we debating so much about tax relief right now? What is the thing that caused us to come together? It is the fact that President Bush has been elected and has followed through on his campaign commitment to propose a $1.6 trillion tax cut to the American people. I want to go through what it is President Bush has proposed. We have had a lot of debate about whether it is good or bad to have a tax cut, but not a lot of details about what President Bush is proposing we do. The President's tax relief proposal is fair and responsible. It provides a typical American family at least $1,600 in relief. They get to keep at least $1,600 of their own money that they are now sending to Washington with these skyrocketing surpluses, which I will talk about in a moment, which are growing. The typical American family is defined in this context as a family of four with one wage earner who earns $50,000 annually. I will give you more statistics about what this means for other types of situations. For example, the President's proposal gives a tax cut to every single family in America who pays income taxes. What does it do? It reduces the current five-rate tax structure to a four-rate tax structure and reduces every tax rate. Every taxpayer who is in any tax rate--in any tax bracket--will receive relief. Right now, he is proposing that we move to a 10-percent, a 15-percent, a 25-percent, and a 33-percent tax bracket. For those of you who don't follow tax brackets, currently the lowest is 15. So if you are in the lowest income category, paying the lowest rates of income taxes, you will see your tax rates go from 15 percent to 10 percent--a 33-percent reduction for that tax bracket alone. The tax reductions are lower as the rates go higher, in terms of percentage of income. It doubles the child tax credit to $1,000. It reduces the marriage tax penalty. I think we ought to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I have cosponsored legislation which does that. Many of us will be trying to see if that total elimination of the marriage tax penalty can be worked into this package. It eliminates the death tax and expands the charitable tax deduction. What does this mean? It means that one in five families with children now who are paying taxes will no longer pay any tax at all. Six million families, those at the lower income levels, will be totally eliminated from the tax rolls. A family of four making $35,000 would get a 100- percent tax cut. A family of four making $50,000 would receive about a 50-percent tax cut. A family of four making $75,000 would receive about a 75-percent tax cut. The marginal income tax rate on low-income families will fall by over 40 percent. The current Tax Code is unfair to a single mom paying $25,000 a year. She pays a higher marginal tax than somebody making $250,000 a year. That will be changed under this tax proposal. Federal taxes today are the highest they have ever been in peacetime America. Americans pay more now for taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined. Americans work more than 4 months out of every year just to pay their tax bills. The current high tax rates are keeping low-income taxpayers out of the middle class. Recent business layoffs show that the economy needs a boost quickly. Those layoffs are not a reason not to have tax relief; they are a reason we need tax relief. The critics--and there are always critics--are throwing everything they can at this tax relief proposal. I am in my ninth year in Congress, with 6 years in the House and almost 3 years in the Senate. During the entire time I have served in Congress, we have fought for tax relief. We have put forward bill after bill. We have put forward every kind of idea you can think of to get the President and the administration and those who oppose tax relief in this city to support something. Every time in the last 8\1/2\ years, whatever we have proposed, whatever it is, has been attacked as a ``tax cut for the wealthy.'' I start to wonder if anybody who pays taxes is defined as wealthy. When we get a proposal such as this one that benefits everybody in America and gives higher percentages of relief for those at the lower income level, it is attacked as what? A tax cut for the wealthy. It seems there is not ever going to be a tax cut that is acceptable to those in this country who want to keep taxes high so they can keep spending high. That is what this debate is about. Make no mistake about it; We are now seeing that the record levels of spending by this Federal Government are not enough to those who want to see spending increased even more. We have projections of $5.6 trillion of surplus in the next 10 years, and that is not enough. We have to say that a $1.6 trillion tax cut is going to threaten our country. The reason it is a threat is that there are those who believe that from cradle to grave this Federal Government must take care of you. In order to do so, it has to have your tax dollars. Spending at the Federal level is the ultimate objective. Let's talk about that surplus. The latest projections are for a $5.6 trillion surplus. One of the battles we have won in the last 8 years since I have been in Congress is that we have stopped the Federal Government from robbing the Social Security surplus and spending Social Security dollars, masking excess spending. We don't allow that to happen anymore, and we won't here. If you take out the Social Security part of the surplus and the other off-budget portions of the surplus, that is about $2.5 trillion, leaving somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.1 trillion of non-Social Security on budget surplus over the next decade. President Bush is proposing that we give tax relief for $1.6 trillion of that. You have heard the argument made that it is risky; we can't project 10 years and be accurate. That is true. In the 8 or 9 years I have been here, I can't remember a year when we got it exactly right. But I can remember that every year we got it low. We used conservative estimates. We have built in downturns in the economy. Frankly, if we find that even these conservative estimates are not too low--and I will note that they are upgraded every month now, showing that they are low--we can adjust things as we move along. To scare people out of a tax cut by saying we don't know for sure is simply another argument by those who never want to see taxes cut. We have an opportunity to reduce taxes in a significant way, and we ought to take it. Let's talk a little bit about what the positive effect of tax relief will be. Tax relief is going to have the immediate effect of helping families, businesses, and communities save and invest more while moving in a direction toward reforming the Tax Code. Prompt action will also improve the economic environment and strengthen consumer confidence. By the way, those projections we use are what we call static projections. As we project, we are not allowed to assume reduced taxes will stimulate economic activity. We have to assume that every dollar of taxes that we cut is a dollar of lost revenue to the Federal Government. Experience shows us that in many of the areas where we reduce taxes the increased stimulation to the economics of the country actually generate increased revenues. Every time so far that we have cut the capital gains tax, the revenues from the capital gains tax have gone up--not down--because it has allowed more capital transactions to take place in this country. We are not allowed to take any of that into consideration. But tax relief will--mark my words--allow for more investment, will allow for more safety, will strengthen consumer confidence, and will stimulate and strengthen our economy. Recently Alan Greenspan was emphatic about the superiority of tax cuts to spending increases. He said: If long-term fiscal stability is the criterion, it is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases. That is what the debate is about. This debate is not about whether to pay down the debt or to reduce taxes. This debate is about whether to keep taxes high so this Government can continue its increasing appetite to spend Federal dollars and pull control over the economy and over people into Washington. The argument is made that we should reduce the Federal debt first. Frankly, I agree with that. I strongly believe that our highest priority should be to pay down the Federal debt. Alan Greenspan pointed out that with the surpluses we are seeing now we are paying down the Federal debt at a rate about as fast as we can. There are certain instruments out there that go beyond the 10-year timeframe with which we are dealing--public debt instruments--and if we buy those down early, we will actually have to pay a premium in order to do so. His point was that if we continue our current rate of paying down the national debt, we can do so and have this tax relief. We have already reduced the national debt by $360 billion. We reduced it last year by $224 billion. Even assuming this tax relief package goes into place, in 5 years we will have paid off more than half the Federal debt, and in 10 years we can pay off most of it--still working on both areas where we have debt instruments that are out there beyond the 10-year time cycle. Make no mistake about this either. We are committed to paying down the national debt, and we will pay down the national debt. But stopping a tax relief package is not going to accelerate that process. Stopping the tax relief package is simply going to accelerate the opportunity for Federal spending sprees as we go into our appropriations cycles in this Congress. I think it is important that we get this debate in its proper perspective. Our goal here is to improve the quality of life for all Americans. The argument has been made about this tax package that, well, it is going to stop us from being able to make needed investments in areas that we have to invest. Remember those budget surplus numbers I talked to you about earlier. Even if they are not adjusted up anymore, we are going to have somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years after the tax relief package; after saving all the Social Security surplus and other off-budget surplus dollars to use for strengthening things where we have legitimate needs for Federal spending. For example, America's failing schools still fail to deliver a world- class education; and President Bush has proposed to make sure not one student is left behind. Our national security needs some strengthening. We can assure that we have an effective defense against ballistic missile attacks; that our military's aging equipment and personnel shortages are addressed; Our health services and programs for the elderly are out of date and need reform and strengthening. Those things can happen. We can address the needs of this country without being caused, by the politics of fear, to think we don't have an opportunity for tax relief right now. That is what it ultimately gets down to. This time, as well as every time in the last 8 years, we will try to talk America out of a tax cut. They will use what I call the politics of fear. They will say we can't protect you if you do not let us have these tax dollars; that we can't do what is needed to make sure that your life is made safe; and that if you allow this tax relief package to go through, then all kinds of terrible things are going to happen to the economy. The truth is, this is a modest tax relief proposal given the potential surpluses we see growing; and as we move forward this country will be strengthened--not weakened--by a resolve to reduce the tax burden paid by the American families. Again, we pay the highest rates of taxes today than we have paid in peacetime America. We have some of the highest surpluses ever. We can protect Social Security and strengthen our country, and we can do so if we will properly address the issue of tax relief. I encourage us to move forward quickly to pass this tax package. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Idahoans who will participate in the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games in Anchorage, Alaska, this March 4th through 11th. The Special Olympics World Games is an event of Special Olympics, Inc. It is an international competition offered once every two years in Olympic tradition, alternating winter and summer games. Chris Fonk of Burley and Wendy Newsom of Boise will compete in Alpine skiing. Eric Dille of Burley will be the Alpine skiing alternate. Chad Moe and Lacy Cummings, both of Lewiston, will compete in Nordic skiing. Janet Bush of Mountain Home and Jeff Frost of Pocatello will be the Nordic skiing alternates. April Empey of Blackfoot, Chris Blair of Burley and Dennis Knifong of Boise will compete in snowshoeing. Snowshoe coach, Terry Kinkead of Burley, and Nordic coach, Manny Sheibany of Moscow, will also take part in the 2001 World Winter Games. The efforts of Terry, Manny, and so many other coaches, volunteers, and supporters has helped the Idaho Special Olympics program offer the opportunity to benefit through sports training and competition to thousands of people with mental retardation. In turn, every Special Olympics competition leaves its spectators with a better understanding of people who have mental retardation. Through their spirited participation, we learn that these athletes appreciate challenges and benefit greatly from encouragement. We are shown that excellence is a matter of passion and determination. Most important, we are made to realize that the emotional and spiritual health of people with special needs is largely a reflection of the respect and acceptance they receive in their community at large. I am very proud of these Idaho athletes, their coaches, and their supporters. Special Olympics enlighten us, and then leave our souls soaring.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in the final days of the 106th Congress, I wanted to take this opportunity to speak about the issue of debt relief and reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. A great deal of attention has been paid recently to a complicated issue that has faced Congress--the international lending practices of the World Bank group and the IMF. The complexity increases when you factor in calls for the United States to contribute to efforts to write off debt owed by the world's heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs). As vice chairman of the Senate Banking Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance, I have conducted a series of oversight hearings on the functioning of the IMF and World Bank. These hearings have only strengthened my belief that the evidence is clear--we should not grant debt relief without demanding that the international lending institutions such as the World Bank and IMF change their current practices. I supported Senate passage of the fiscal year 2001 foreign operations appropriations conference report with much reservation. The bill collectively provides about $435 million toward debt forgiveness for the HIPCs. Of this money, $210 million comes disguised as ``emergency'' spending. Regrettably, this all goes without any link between relief and reform. The legislation calls for a couple of reports to Congress and a few policy suggestions that the U.S. ought to urge these institutions to adopt, but it has no teeth to force change. The lending institutions pay no consequences for failing to mend their ways . . . this means the consequences of inaction will be borne by, among others, American taxpayers and people in need. Essentially, the IMF, World Bank, and other international lending institutions are supposed to improve economies of impoverished countries and the health and well-being of people throughout the world. In the U.S., we are a compassionate people; we share our bounty with many other countries. But many question the effectiveness of how the World Bank and the IMF perform their missions. The World Bank and IMF lend money to certain countries to use for various purposes--improving infrastructure needs, feeding and immunizing children, and stabilizing the economy, to name a few. But these noble goals have been stymied by corruption, greed, and poor management. What has developed is sadly lacking in results and in much need of reform. Some advocates of debt relief have tried to delink the issue of debt relief from the issue of reform. I agree with recent remarks that these lending institutions are at the ``root'' of the debt problem. And if we are to weed out the problem, we must pull it up by its roots. We all know that, if you don't pull up weeds by their roots, they merely sprout up again. This serves nobody's interest--least of all the people currently suffering. We need transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. We need to know where the money is being spent, who is spending it, and how it is benefiting that country and achieving the goals of the World Bank and the IMF. A General Accounting Office (GAO) report on the World Bank concluded ``[management] controls are not yet strong enough to provide reasonable assurance that project funds are spent according to the Bank's guidelines.'' Simply put, the World Bank can't tell us with any reasonable level of certainty that funds are being spent efficiently and as they are intended to be spent. Other reports have questioned the IMF's practices. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm spoke eloquently about this issue recently on the Senate floor. I know he talked about the Uganda situation at some length. And keep in mind that Uganda has been used as the ``poster child'' of success. It has qualified for debt relief under the original and enhanced HIPC initiatives. Let me echo the chairman. In May, I wrote Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers about the Ugandan Government's multi-million dollar expenditure on a presidential Gulfstream jet. As I noted in my letter, Idahoans and others throughout this country sympathize with the plight facing impoverished Ugandans whose annual per capita income is roughly $330. People throughout the world deserve the chance to succeed and thrive. What troubled me was the Ugandan Government's failure to place a high priority on reducing poverty and choosing to expend millions on a luxury aircraft, then essentially asking for and receiving millions in debt relief. This situation has deeply troubled me. I was even more troubled by Secretary Summers' reply. Secretary Summers basically said the purchase of the plane was not out of the ordinary and he was satisfied that Uganda didn't take money from poverty relief programs to pay for it. As he stated, ``The Ugandan authorities have committed to offset the cost of the aircraft against defense and other non-priority, non-wage expenditures.'' But to me, money is money; if Uganda can find money in its budget to pay for an extravagant jet, it should be able to find money to help its own people in poverty. I imagine $37 million would go a long way toward helping people in a country where the average per capita income is less than $350 a year. As I have repeatedly noted, when the U.S. Federal Government helped bail out Chrysler, former chairman Lee Iacocca was required to sell the company jets. And there is another problem--``moral hazard.'' In simple terms, people must be made to bear the consequences of their decisions. If not, they have less incentive to act prudently. If a country knows the IMF will come in and bail them out after making bad decisions, there is little incentive for the country to change its decisionmaking process. Or, if the country knows it will receive IMF funding, perhaps it uses other monies to prop up companies that should be allowed to fail. The moral hazard problem pervades this system. We might all like someone to step in and alleviate the negative impact of bad decisions we make, but this would not encourage us to act wisely. Furthermore, someone else bears those consequences. In the case of troubled countries and the international lending institutions, it is contributors such as U.S. taxpayers who bear the burden. And, honestly, the citizens of the country in question whose situation fails to improve. So, while we are and should continue to be a compassionate nation, I also recognize the duty of Congress to set good public policy and represent the interests of hard-working Americans. Chairman Gramm and I, along with others, only asked that we adopt a proposal that recognizes all of these goals. This was achievable if everyone had been willing to work together. Unfortunately, the Treasury Department refused to engage in meaningful dialog and compromise with Congress on this issue. What is even more amazing is that the Treasury Department fought for this spending when estimates suggest that the maximum amount that would be necessary for the U.S. to fund its obligations to the HIPC Trust for this year and next is less than $100 million. We should not be granting relief without reform. I assure you that follow-up will be done during the next Congress to illustrate the continued need for Congress and the next administration to alter current U.S. policies and practices. I completely agree with an editorial in the October 12 Wall Street Journal which stated that ``Any debt write-off that doesn't include radical reform of the international financial institutions . . . will renew the cycle of non-performance.''

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Idaho youth who have honored World War II veterans in recent months. Several Idaho high schools, including Pocatello High School, Highland High School, and Century High School, as well as Bosie high School, have become tremendously involved in Operation Recognition. In addition, students at Eagle High School have fundraised extensively for the National WWII Memorial that will be placed on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Operation Recognition is a new program through which honorary high school diplomas are awarded to WWII veterans. The veterans who receive these diplomas left for service in the war before they completed their studies. The gesture of awarding an honorary diploma is a way to thank veterans and demonstrate appreciation for the sacrifices that they made. Students whose high schools award honorary diplomas often assist in planning the details of the ceremony. In the process of developing memorable and personal additions to the graduation, these young people learn about the war and its historical significance. Pocatello High School has selected December 7th of this year, which is the 59th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, as the date of its ceremony for graduating veterans. Honorary diplomas will also be awarded to those who attended nearby Highland High School and Century High School. As part of the festivities, one student from each high school will interview a veteran who attended his or her school. The graduates and their families are invited to stay after the ceremony for a reunion. Students have been asked to help decorate the stage and escort attendees to their seats. The Boise High School History Club is already preparing for the April 17, 2001, Boise High veterans' graduation. Students in the club have done exhaustive research to find eligible veterans. They have also been working to publicize the event, preparing a yearbook for each graduating veteran, and making arrangements for a homeroom mentor program. The students are arranging speaking opportunities for the veterans and a range of social activities, including a cookout. Idaho State Veterans Home Volunteer Coordinator, Tom Ressler, says that the goal is to establish a relationship between veterans and students before the graduation. Eagle High School students showed their appreciation for WWII veterans by raising more than twenty-three thousand dollars for the National WWII Memorial. Their year-and-a-half fundraising effort proved to be the most successful of all our nation's high schools. The enthusiastically-run fundraising campaign included candy sales, a giant tag sale, and concession stands. The students also marched in parades and ran advertisements on television. Eleventh grade American history teacher, Gail Chumbley, and student chairs Fil Southerland and Kate Bowen spearheaded the initiative. Ms. Chumbley reported that the fundraising campaign has motivated many students to learn about WWII outside of class. Ms. Chumbley, Mr. Southerland, and Ms. Bowen will present The National Campaign Chairman, Senator Bob Dole, with a commemorative check at the monument's groundbraking ceremony that will be held on Veterans' Day this year. I take great pride in the fact that members of the youngest generation of Idahoans, who have grown up in a time of relative peace and unprecedented prosperity for our country, take time to honor our nation's WWII veterans. Through their endeavors, these students have learned much about WWII. In the process, they have heightened their community's awareness of this important part of American history and the brave people who were part of it.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Senate on its unanimous passage of the Violence Against Women Act. In particular, I would like to commend the members of the conference committee for including language that establishes a legal definition of dating violence. In domestic violence situations, victims are victims regardless of their age or legal relationship to the abuser. The seriousness of this issue was brought home by a tragic case in Idaho. In December 1999, a 17-year-old Soda Springs, Idaho, girl, Cassie Dehl, was killed in an accident involving her abusive boyfriend. Prior to her death, the numerous attempts by her mother to obtain legal protection for her daughter failed because Idaho's domestic violence laws did not apply to teenage dating relationships. Earlier this year, Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne and the Idaho State Legislature enacted legislation, named in Cassie's memory, which extended Idaho domestic violence laws to dating relationships. I am pleased that Federal law will now also protect teenagers involved in abusive dating relationships. While the reauthorization of VAWA is an important step in protecting all victims of domestic violence, our work is not yet done. Under VAWA, dating violence has been included in four of the five major domestic violence grant programs. However, one major grant program was left behind. I am committed to working with my colleagues in the next Congress to expand dating violence to all domestic violence programs under VAWA. I ask unanimous consent that the vote total be printed in the Record.