Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, would the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee yield for a colloquy regarding Land and Water Conservation Funds for Idaho?

Mr. CRAPO. First, allow me to commend the Chairman for his leadership and hard work on this bill. He and the Subcommittee have had to make difficult decisions with scarce resources and have worked hard to do so in a fair manner. I appreciate the Chairman's efforts and diligence. Idaho is a state of spectacular natural beauty and wildlife habitat. As the Chairman knows, an opportunity exists to use Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) to acquire easements in the state to protect these valuable habitats and scenic values. While I am concerned regarding the level of funding appropriated, I appreciate the Subcommittee's recognition of the importance of funding easements in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, near the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, and on the Lower Salmon River. However, many other LWCF projects in the state were not funded. Protecting deer habitat in the Soda Springs Hills, acquiring inholdings to protect elk range and address historic mining activities in the Silver Spar Land Acquisition, securing easements along the Upper Snake River and South Fork of the Snake River, and acquiring private land, the Sulfur Creek Ranch, within the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness area are all important projects. These projects are all locally-driven, with wide-spread support, and anxious willing-sellers. I recognize that the Subcommittee is operating under significant financial restraints and that, unfortunately, not all worthy projects can be funded. It is my hope that if additional LWCF money becomes available, the Chairman can revisit these important Idaho projects. I would ask the Chairman if he would work with us in conference to evaluate these requests, with an eye toward inclusion in the conference report. Mr. Gorton. I appreciate Senator Crapo's interest in these projects. I am familiar with these projects and recognize the value in protecting these lands. I would be happy to work with the Senator to reevaluate these projects in the conference committee. If additional LWCF funding becomes available, we will consider what can be done to address these needs.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution, co-sponsored by Senators Bob Smith, Hutchinson, Craig, Shelby, Coverdell, Enzi, Gramm, and Inhofe, revoking the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule on Total Maximum Daily Loads under the Clean Water Act. I strongly support the EPA's goal of cleaning up our nation's water bodies but disagree with its approach. We must accelerate cleanup of our rivers, lakes, and streams; unfortunately, the EPA's rule will not accomplish that goal. In fact, the EPA's hastily completed rule will divert billions of dollars from programs that are working to an unreasonable, prohibitively-expensive, and technically-unworkable program. Since the EPA's draft TMDL rule was first published in August 1999, many stakeholders including states, industry, environmental organizations, the public, and Congress have all raised serious concerns. The EPA received over 34,000 public comments, most overwhelmingly in opposition to the rule. Twenty public forums were conducted; again, sentiments ran overwhelmingly in opposition to the EPA's rule. Twelve congressional hearings were held, revealing that the proposal is unreasonable and unworkable. The National Governors' Association denounced the rule as an inflexible, unfunded mandate that will eliminate opportunities to reduce overall pollution. In a May 19 letter, six environmental groups urged the EPA to ``withdraw the current version of the proposed rule, which is so fundamentally flawed that it would weaken the existing TMDL program.'' When it became clear that the EPA was ignoring concerns and proceeding to fast-track its rule, even in the fact of such serious opposition, Congress, rightly, exercised its oversight responsibility by including specific language in the Fiscal Year 2001 Military Construction Supplemental Appropriations bill to prevent finalization of the rule. Similar language was also passed by the House in the FY 2001 VA-HUM-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. In clear defiance of Congress, the EPA promulgated the rule on July 11, 2000. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808 provides for expedited congressional review of agency rulemaking; specially, Section 802 provides a legislative procedure by which Congress can disapprove an agency's rule. This congressional review statute was approved in the 104th Congress for situations just such as this to reserve to Congress a mechanism for exercising its agency oversight responsibility. It is important that we work to develop a program that will enhance, not hinder, our cleanup efforts. Repeatedly, the EPA was urged to repropose a rule that will accomplish our goal of more clean water more quickly; revoking the hurriedly completed rule will allow the EPA to focus its efforts on a program that will actually achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the EPA's efforts to circumvent Congress and encouraging it to develop an effective proposal in collaboration with the public.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint resolution, co-sponsored by Senators Bob Smith, Hutchinson, Craig, Shelby, Coverdell, Enzi, Gramm, and Inhofe, revoking the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule on Total Maximum Daily Loads under the Clean Water Act. I strongly support the EPA's goal of cleaning up our nation's water bodies but disagree with its approach. We must accelerate cleanup of our rivers, lakes, and streams; unfortunately, the EPA's rule will not accomplish that goal. In fact, the EPA's hastily completed rule will divert billions of dollars from programs that are working to an unreasonable, prohibitively-expensive, and technically-unworkable program. Since the EPA's draft TMDL rule was first published in August 1999, many stakeholders including states, industry, environmental organizations, the public, and Congress have all raised serious concerns. The EPA received over 34,000 public comments, most overwhelmingly in opposition to the rule. Twenty public forums were conducted; again, sentiments ran overwhelmingly in opposition to the EPA's rule. Twelve congressional hearings were held, revealing that the proposal is unreasonable and unworkable. The National Governors' Association denounced the rule as an inflexible, unfunded mandate that will eliminate opportunities to reduce overall pollution. In a May 19 letter, six environmental groups urged the EPA to ``withdraw the current version of the proposed rule, which is so fundamentally flawed that it would weaken the existing TMDL program.'' When it became clear that the EPA was ignoring concerns and proceeding to fast-track its rule, even in the fact of such serious opposition, Congress, rightly, exercised its oversight responsibility by including specific language in the Fiscal Year 2001 Military Construction Supplemental Appropriations bill to prevent finalization of the rule. Similar language was also passed by the House in the FY 2001 VA-HUM-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. In clear defiance of Congress, the EPA promulgated the rule on July 11, 2000. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808 provides for expedited congressional review of agency rulemaking; specially, Section 802 provides a legislative procedure by which Congress can disapprove an agency's rule. This congressional review statute was approved in the 104th Congress for situations just such as this to reserve to Congress a mechanism for exercising its agency oversight responsibility. It is important that we work to develop a program that will enhance, not hinder, our cleanup efforts. Repeatedly, the EPA was urged to repropose a rule that will accomplish our goal of more clean water more quickly; revoking the hurriedly completed rule will allow the EPA to focus its efforts on a program that will actually achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the EPA's efforts to circumvent Congress and encouraging it to develop an effective proposal in collaboration with the public.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Act to authorize the conceptual design of a Subsurface Geoscience Laboratory at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. As many of my colleagues know, money for environmental cleanup is in short supply. The options for addressing cleanup funding shortfalls are limited to taking funds from other programs to support environmental cleanup, not doing the cleanup, or putting money into research, development, science, and technology to make environmental cleanup cheaper and more efficient. This amendment and the Subsurface Geoscience Laboratory addresses the latter of these options. The Subsurface Geoscience Laboratory would be located at the INEEL which, as the load laboratory for the Environmental Management program within DOE, is the natural location for this facility. In addition, the capabilities and core competencies of the INEEL are a good fit with the subsurface science needs of the nation. I say the nation because, although this facility would be located in Idaho, the solution developed would be applicable to DOE sites across the nation. The solutions developed would also be applicable outside of the DOE, in fact, anywhere environmental contaminants threaten subsurface water supplies. The $400,000 authorized by this amendment for conceptual design of the Subsurface Geoscience Laboratory is an important first step to developing the scientific and technical tools needed to solve environmental cleanup problems. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. amendment no. 3751 (Purpose: To assist the economic development of the Ute Indian Tribe by authorizing the transfer to the Tribe of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 2, to protect the Colorado River by providing for the removal of the tailings from the Atlas uranium milling site near Moab, Utah, and for other purposes) (The amendment is printed in Today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'')

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to commend two Idaho schools, Garfield Elementary School in Boise and Sunnyside Elementary School in Kellogg for their high standards and excellent teaching records. Last month, these two schools were recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Association of Title I Directors as Distinguished Title I Schools. These two elementary schools were among the ninety schools nationwide to be recognized for their efforts toward student achievement in schools that teach students from low-income households. Garfield Elementary and Sunnyside Elementary exemplify Idaho's high education standards and I am honored to congratulate these two schools for receiving this national award. This national honor is especially impressive when one recognizes that more than fifty thousand schools across the country use Title I funds to boost the achievement levels of students from low-income households. The distinction of 2000 Distinguished Title I School is awarded to schools whose programs offer children from educationally disadvantaged communities access to effective academic lessons. Education is crucial to the well-being of these future adults because it is often their means of upward mobility. Improved education opportunities allows these children to become better citizens and achieve their education and career goals, including higher paying jobs, and a better quality of life. Much of Sunnyside Elementary's success can be attributed to an active parent volunteer program. For example, while the school has only 300 students, approximately 124 parents volunteer their time at least once a year and forty-nine parents volunteer at the school on a regular basis. A web page, maintained by Principal Steve Shepperd and monthly school newsletters inform parents of school activities and highlight ways parents can get involved. The suggested tasks are often as simple as helping children with homework assignments. Principal Shepperd says, ``Just because sixty percent of the students we teach come from households that are at or near the poverty level, it doesn't mean that they cannot learn. We concentrate on setting high standards and we help the kids meet them by offering encouragement and extra assistance with their lessons.'' Principal Shepperd credits the dedicated teachers of Sunnyside Elementary for putting in extra time and for bringing so much of their energy into the classroom. Garfield Elementary is noted for its tremendous community involvement. Student volunteers from Boise State University, most of them studying to be teachers, regularly tutor students after school. Garfield hosts an annual Career Day in which professionals from the community describe their careers and how they pursued them. The school also has a fifteen-member mentor program. Although none of the tutors have children of their own who attend Garfield, they come to the school frequently during lunchtime to read with children. This extensive community involvement is one of the reasons why the Iowa Test of Basic Skills for students at Garfield Elementary have risen as much as thirty points on a 100-point scale for some grades. In addition to volunteering, parents at Garfield Elementary are encouraged by Principal Elaine Eichelberg to join one of the school's many committees. At the beginning of the year, each household receives a questionnaire that lists specific ways to help and asks parents to indicate their interest and availability. Principal Eichelberg says, ``One of the best things parents can do to improve their child's education is to keep close tabs on their child's progress themselves and work with teachers when problems at school arise.'' The national recognition that Sunnyside Elementary and Garfield Elementary have received reaffirms my belief that Idaho has some of the best teachers and administrators in the nation. Backed by strong involvement from parents and encouragement from the community, these elementary schools have demonstrated success in teacher training, utilized community resources, and established partnerships with parents. There has been much debate about the success of the Title I program in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Schools like Garfield and Sunnyside show us that the programs implemented with the use of Title I funds do work. When we invest in quality education programs that focus on basic skills, such as reading and mathematics, our low- performing students will improve. The methods employed in Idaho serve as a reminder that community and parental support often make the biggest difference in elementary education. I am very proud of the accomplishments of these two schools. Their steady focus on hard work has put their students on a path of continued academic success.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senator Craig and Senator Burns, to introduce the Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act. This bill will preserve our nation's backcountry airstrips and require a public review and comment period before airstrips are temporarily or permanently closed. Idaho is home to more than fifty backcountry airstrips and the state is known nationwide for its air access to wilderness and primitive areas. In testimony before Congress on the importance of preserving backcountry airstrips, Bart Welsh, Aeronautics Administrator for the Idaho Department of Transportation, stated that these airstrips are, ``an irreplaceable state and national treasure.'' Unfortunately, the reality today is that many airstrips have been closed or rendered unserviceable through neglect by federal agencies responsible for land management. Even more troubling is that 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. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention that this bill is a result of Congressman Jim Hansen's tireless efforts in promoting backcountry aviation access in the other body. Backcountry airstrips are disappearing and, because of existing statutes, they are irreplaceable. When the Frank Church Wilderness Act was established in Idaho, it incorporated a provision to provide for the continued operation of all existing landing strips. The Act states that existing landing strips cannot be closed permanently or rendered unserviceable without the written consent of the State of Idaho. This has created an effective partnership between personnel from the U.S. Forest Service and staff from the Idaho Division of Aeronautics along with other interested parties. My bill extends the success of the Frank Church Wilderness Act provision nationwide to preserve airstrips in Idaho as well as other states. I have heard from general aviation users and state aviation officials that pilots often discover that an airstrip is 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. The public process in this bill would rectify this problem by ensuring that everyone with an interest in backcountry aviation remains informed of a proposed closure and is allowed to comment on it. Backcountry airstrips are active and essential to citizens who depend on wilderness access. These airstrips are utilized by pilots and outdoor enthusiasts. In addition, 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 mails. Among the other vital functions of backcountry airstrips is their use for firefighting, search and rescue, and especially their availability to pilots in emergencies. Backcountry airstrips are analogous to fire engines in a firehouse. Although the airstrip may not used daily, it is always available in an emergency. Likewise, backcountry airstrips are available as a safe haven for public flying in remote mountainous areas. Without the airstrips, these pilots would have little chance of survival while attempting an emergency landing. Let me be clear, the Backcountry Landing Strip Access Act does not harm our forests or our wilderness areas, as some might suggest. Moreover, backcountry airstrips are regularly used by forest officials to maintain forests and trails, conduct ecological management projects, and aerial mapping. This bill is simply about access. It does not reopen airstrips that have already been closed, nor does it burden federal officials with maintenance requirements. In fact, pilots themselves regularly maintain backcountry strips. The Backcounty Landing Strip Access Act is commonsense legislation that allows those who used and benefit from the airstrips to be involved in the decision-making process. I have always found that decisions on the use of public land are best handled by those who are impacted the most, rather than federal bureaucrats in Washington, DC. In Idaho, we have evolved into a cooperative relationship with federal land managers. It makes sense that the rest of the country should benefit from this philosophy of cooperation. One we lose an airstrip it is gone forever. I urge my colleagues to join with us in an effort to preserve the remaining backcountry airstrips.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000 with my colleague, Senator Larry Craig, to bring accountability back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's administration of the Pittman- Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sportfish Restoration Act. For years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has apparently misused millions of dollars from these accounts, betraying the trust of America's sportsman. Congressional investigations and a General Accounting Office audit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have revealed that, contrary to existing law, money has been routinely diverted to administrative slush funds, withheld from states, and generally misused for purposes unrelated to either sportfishing or wildlife conservation. In addition, the GAO called the Division of Federal Aid, ``if not the worst, one of the worst-managed programs we have encountered.'' As an avid outdoorsman, I am particularly disturbed by this abuse. Since 1937, sportsman have willingly paid an excise tax on hunting, and later fishing, equipment. These hunters, shooters, and anglers paid this tax with the understanding that the money would be used for state fish and wildlife conservation programs. This partnership has been instrumental in providing generations of Americans a quality recreational experience. Through the years, it has been an experience that I have enjoyed with both my parents and my children. The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, provides funding for wildlife habitat restoration and improvement, wildlife management research, hunter education, and public target ranges. Funds for the Pittman-Robertson Act are derived from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program, often referred to as the Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux Acts, is funded through a 10 percent excise tax on fishing equipment and a 3 percent tax on electric trolling motors, sonor fish finders, taxes on motorboat fuels, and import duties on fishing and pleasure boats. Through the cost reimbursement program, states use these funds to enhance sport fishing. These enhancements come through fish stocking, acquisition and improvement of habitat educational programs, and development of recreational facilities that directly support sport fishing, such as boat ramps and fishing piers. Under the law, revenue from these taxes are expected to be returned to state and local fish and game organizations for programs to manage and enhance sport fish and game species. The Fish and Wildlife Service is supposed to deduct only the cost of administering the programs, up to 8 percent of Pittman-Robertson revenues and 6 percent of Dingell- Johnson funds. Unfortunatly, these funds have been misdirected and misused by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Through their investment in the Federal Aid program, America's hunters and fisherman have proved themselves to be our nation's true conservationists. Through its misuse of these funds, the Fish and Wildlife Service has proven itself to be a negligent steward of the public trust. The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act, would restore accountability to the administration of Federal Aid funds. By limiting the amount of revenue that may be used on administration, and the accounts that these funds may be used for, this bill will reign in the opportunities for misuse by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Our legislation will also make legal a multi-state conservation grant program to allow streamlined funding for projects that involve multiple states. Additionally, the bill will increase funding for firearm and bow hunter safety programs. This bill seeks to re-establish a trust between the hunters and anglers who pay the excise taxes and the federal government. It is an opportunity to repair a system that has been lauded as one of the nation's most successful conservation efforts. I hope my colleagues will join with us in a bipartisan effort to restore accountability and responsibility to the Federal Aid programs and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000 with my colleague, Senator Larry Craig, to bring accountability back to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's administration of the Pittman- Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sportfish Restoration Act. For years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has apparently misused millions of dollars from these accounts, betraying the trust of America's sportsman. Congressional investigations and a General Accounting Office audit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have revealed that, contrary to existing law, money has been routinely diverted to administrative slush funds, withheld from states, and generally misused for purposes unrelated to either sportfishing or wildlife conservation. In addition, the GAO called the Division of Federal Aid, ``if not the worst, one of the worst-managed programs we have encountered.'' As an avid outdoorsman, I am particularly disturbed by this abuse. Since 1937, sportsman have willingly paid an excise tax on hunting, and later fishing, equipment. These hunters, shooters, and anglers paid this tax with the understanding that the money would be used for state fish and wildlife conservation programs. This partnership has been instrumental in providing generations of Americans a quality recreational experience. Through the years, it has been an experience that I have enjoyed with both my parents and my children. The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, provides funding for wildlife habitat restoration and improvement, wildlife management research, hunter education, and public target ranges. Funds for the Pittman-Robertson Act are derived from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program, often referred to as the Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux Acts, is funded through a 10 percent excise tax on fishing equipment and a 3 percent tax on electric trolling motors, sonor fish finders, taxes on motorboat fuels, and import duties on fishing and pleasure boats. Through the cost reimbursement program, states use these funds to enhance sport fishing. These enhancements come through fish stocking, acquisition and improvement of habitat educational programs, and development of recreational facilities that directly support sport fishing, such as boat ramps and fishing piers. Under the law, revenue from these taxes are expected to be returned to state and local fish and game organizations for programs to manage and enhance sport fish and game species. The Fish and Wildlife Service is supposed to deduct only the cost of administering the programs, up to 8 percent of Pittman-Robertson revenues and 6 percent of Dingell- Johnson funds. Unfortunatly, these funds have been misdirected and misused by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Through their investment in the Federal Aid program, America's hunters and fisherman have proved themselves to be our nation's true conservationists. Through its misuse of these funds, the Fish and Wildlife Service has proven itself to be a negligent steward of the public trust. The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act, would restore accountability to the administration of Federal Aid funds. By limiting the amount of revenue that may be used on administration, and the accounts that these funds may be used for, this bill will reign in the opportunities for misuse by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Our legislation will also make legal a multi-state conservation grant program to allow streamlined funding for projects that involve multiple states. Additionally, the bill will increase funding for firearm and bow hunter safety programs. This bill seeks to re-establish a trust between the hunters and anglers who pay the excise taxes and the federal government. It is an opportunity to repair a system that has been lauded as one of the nation's most successful conservation efforts. I hope my colleagues will join with us in a bipartisan effort to restore accountability and responsibility to the Federal Aid programs and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to have a few moments to discuss with the American people this critical issue. The question of violence in our society is, as the Senator from Idaho, my colleague, has just stated, one we all want to address. The differences we have in this Chamber as we debate are not over whether we want to address the difficult problems of violence in our society; they are over how we believe it must best be done. The reason I wanted to stand and talk today is because I am convinced if we continue to focus our efforts on increased gun control and more strict gun control, not only will we impose burdens on law-abiding Americans that are unjustified, but we will fail to give the attention that is necessary to the true causes of the violence that we have to be addressing. I want to address my remarks in two contexts--one, what should we be focusing on and, two, why is it I believe gun control is not the answer. I will talk about that second question first: Why is it that increased gun control is not the answer? Right here in Washington, DC, we have the best example of why we should not be looking to this as the best solution. In the past few months, there have been a lot of statements about a terrible incident of violence that took place at the National Zoo. I share my colleagues' concern about these high-profile acts of violence, but this example shows why it is that our focus on gun control is misdirected. The answer is not to enact more gun control laws but to address the root causes of violence. The April 24 shooting at the National Zoo should shock any law- abiding American. At the same time, it dramatically demonstrates that even the more restrictive gun control laws in the Nation have little impact on the actions of violent criminals. In Washington, DC, it is illegal to possess the kind of handgun that was used in the violence at the National Zoo. It is not just illegal to carry them but one cannot even have one in one's home. Washington, DC, has the most restrictive gun control laws in the Nation, far more restrictive than the gun control laws being debated today. Yet it is in Washington, DC, that this shooting took place-- Washington, DC, which some have called the murder capital of the world, where gun violence runs rampant, from where many of the examples of gun violence come. Yet it is Washington, DC, that has tried to solve these problems through restrictive gun control measures that we seem to debate endlessly on this floor. Why is that the case? Some will argue the reason we do not have the solution in Washington, DC, is that we do not have restrictive gun laws everywhere and that the person who used this gun in Washington, DC, at the zoo could have gotten that gun elsewhere in the country and then brought it into Washington, DC. The fact is, that is not what happened. This was a stolen gun that was used in Washington, DC, for this crime, and the reason is, one cannot just bring a gun into Washington, DC, under the law. For the last 32 years, under Federal law that applies to all States, one cannot buy a gun if one is a Washington, DC, resident and bring it into the District. Interstate sales of handguns have been prohibited for 32 years. What would happen if a D.C. resident were to go to Maryland or Virginia seeking to buy a gun to bring into the District? What would happen is the gun dealer would say: I can't sell you this gun; I have to send this gun to a dealer in your State or in the District and have them deliver it to you there, and since it is illegal to do that in Washington, DC, I can't sell you this gun. A person in Washington, DC, who wants to get a gun to use in an act of violence is, therefore, going to have to break the law, which is the point. Criminals do not obey the laws. Those who are going to use the gun in a crime do not obey these laws. They steal firearms, or they get them on the black market, or they do so illegally. That is exactly why in Washington, DC, those who carry guns do so illegally and know that the law-abiding citizens do not carry guns. The shocking truth is that those who are involved in gun violence are going to get their guns illegally, whether they have gun control measures in place or not, and Washington, DC--right where we are conducting this debate--gives us the best example of why it is that further efforts to restrict citizens' access to guns are not going to stop the violence. What is going to stop the violence? I had an experience, it has been 6 or 8 months ago, watching one of the talk shows on TV that helped me to understand and increased my understanding of what we need to do. We often talk about needing to address the root causes of violence rather than continuing to restrict the right to bear arms. What do we mean when we say that? Obviously, we talk about trying to reduce the violence our children are exposed to in the media, whether it be TV, video games, and so forth, and that is valid. We also talk about needing to have programs of education so that our young people who do have access to guns to hunt or for target shooting learn to do so in a safe way. We also talk a lot on the floor about needing to enforce the laws strictly so that those who voluntarily choose to use guns in acts of violence are punished. If you do the crime, you should do the time. That is another aspect of what we need to do to address violence in our society. When I was watching this talk show, one of the experts who was talking on the issue raised another approach which I think is something on which we need to focus. This particular gentleman who is an expert in this area said: I personally support gun control--his position--I support more gun control, and I support reducing violence in movies, in TV games, in video games, and in the music our children listen to. He said those things are not going to solve the problem; that we actually have the ability today to identify the large majority of our young people who are troubled and who are the most high-risk young people to engage in a crime of violence. We ought to focus our efforts as a society on identifying these young people who are in troubled circumstances and intervening in their lives at an earlier stage so we can have a positive influence in their lives and steer them back on to a better course for their lives and for the lives of others whom they will touch. That struck me. Instead of spending the time and the resources trying to figure out a way to stop people, even law-abiding people, from owning a firearm, what we ought to be doing is spending our time focusing on intervening in the lives of those who are troubled and who face these difficult circumstances and making a positive change in their lives. It is these kinds of efforts that will make a true difference. Again, we will have large differences among ourselves as we continue this debate, but let's let no one in America misunderstand that we all seek the same objectives. We simply have a very different opinion on how to get there. I believe if we as a nation satisfy ourselves with passing some more restrictive gun control measures, pat ourselves on the back and say we have done our job for violence in America, we will be forgetting the real solutions. We will be diverting attention away from those things we have to do as a society to address the root problems of crime and the true root problems of violence. I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAPO. The question is on agreeing to the Daschle amendment, No. 3148.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately begin consideration of the Abraham-Mack amendment regarding merit pay for teachers. Following that debate, Senator Murray will be recognized to offer her amendment regarding class size. No time agreements have been made with regard to these amendments, and therefore votes will occur at a time to be determined in the future. Senators will be notified as votes are scheduled. The Senate will not be in session tomorrow. However, it is expected that debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will continue next week. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor today and speak with regard to the Educational Opportunities Act we will be debating later today. The Educational Opportunities Act represents an opportunity to make a striking change in education in America. I will quickly go over what it is that this act with which we are dealing will do. Title I of the act is dedicated to helping disadvantaged children meet the high standards of education that we seek to have them achieve. Title II is dedicated to improving teacher quality throughout the Nation. Title III contains enrichment initiatives for our schools, including initiatives such as the gifted and talented programs; the advanced placement programs; help for neglected, delinquent, and at-risk students; and help for each school to meet each child's unique educational needs. Title IV deals with developing safe and drug-free schools. Title V deals with initiatives for educational opportunities, initiatives that will involve opportunities such as taking maximum advantage of the technology education we need to provide for our children. Title VI involves innovative education where we give flexibility and power to the local teachers and parents to create innovative educational programs in their communities that will help empower students. Title VII deals with bilingual education and language enhancement acquisition so those who need to develop the necessary skills to speak English can be given the assistance to do so. Title VIII deals with impact aid, a form of aid critically important for those areas where the Federal Government creates an additional burden through its use of Federal property. And Title VIII deals with Indians, Native Hawaiians, and Alaskan Native education, dealing with specific needs throughout the Nation where we need focused efforts. I thank the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this bill. I also like to thank the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and all the members of the committee for their time and efforts to bring forth a bill that invests in public schools and offers our children an unparalleled opportunity for education reform and a better education. I commend all for your endeavors in tackling the tough decisions that face our schools and our children. The pending ESEA bill offers students and parents a tremendous opportunity for better schools and a better education. Perhaps our greatest accomplishment in this bill is the reduction of Federal regulations. While the Federal financial contribution is approximately 7 percent of total education costs, the requirements currently placed on States represent a disproportionate burden in redtape and Federal control. Granting waivers to States, and allowing them to bypass complex, confusing, and time consuming mandates, is one of the most important things S. 2 does to help schools reach their full potential. In exchange for increased State and local flexibility, the Education Opportunities Act requires greater accountability for improving student performance. By establishing high standards and demanding accountability, this bill represents a great step toward ensuring the academic success of all students. Senator Gorton's Straight A's proposal also allows interested States to consolidate up to twelve Federal formula grant programs in exchange for flexible approaches that boost student achievement. The Straight A's program gives States more flexibility in the use of Federal funds, so long as it can be demonstrated that the flexibility is used to achieve higher academic results for students. Senator Gregg's efforts to promote portability should also be commended. This child-centered approach establishes per-pupil amounts to be used for supplemental services, such as tutoring. This change, would for the first time, ensure that the money follows the student. No longer will a school with title I students go without receiving funding for the very students it is asked to educate. As I have looked through this bill and reviewed the various provisions, I am particularly pleased to see a number of measures I introduced earlier this year in separate legislation have been included. These bills focused on the growing needs of education in our rural communities. Earlier this year, I introduced an education bill-- now title VI part B, the Rural Education Initiative--that would allow school districts to combine the small amounts of funding they may receive for specified programs, to accumulate a book of funds large enough to address local priorities. The committee recognized the unique challenges facing rural school districts by incorporating this important provision into the bill before us today. The students, parents, teachers, and administrators in Idaho appreciate your commitment to small, and sometimes poor, rural school districts. Regarding title VIII and the Impact Aid Program, I am pleased to see legislation I authored earlier this year included in the bill. My legislation recommended changing the formulas by which Impact Aid funds are distributed to schools. This change, and other important changes in the bill before us, reaffirm our commitment to those children in schools where the loss of local property taxes due to a large Federal presence has placed an extra burden on local taxpayers. The Educational Opportunities Act also ensures that teachers are an integral part of the effort to improve public education. The bill recognizes that strong professional development for our teachers is the foundation of our effort to facilitate improved student achievement. Whether professional development is emphasized through technology training, quality mentoring, or programs to recruit, hire, and train certified teachers, all which I proposed in legislation earlier this year, under this bill schools will have the flexibility to influence education based on local principles and local successes. Nothing can replace qualified teachers with high standards and a desire to teach. Coupled with professional development opportunities, our teachers must be equipped to positively influence and inspire every child in their classroom, and ultimately accelerate student achievement. As I close, I would like to clarify one position that I have heard misstated, not only during this debate, but in various forums on education reform. Some have expressed the unwillingness of Republicans to adequately fund education initiatives like many of those we are debating today. Some individuals have gone so far as to say that we have proposed significant cuts. This is far from the truth. Last year's consolidated appropriations bill included significant funding increases for education. In fact, education was funded at $990 million above the President's budget request and $2.4 billion more than fiscal year 1999 levels. While there is a clear disagreement on how to spend education funds, I hope that we can proceed with an honest and accurate discussion about the support for adequate funding. If we put our differences aside and work together to pass this bill, ESEA will be reauthorized for five years, with a price tag of nearly $160 billion. In 1965, the original ESEA bill was enacted to close the achievement gap between rich and poor students. I have yet to speak to a Senator who is not willing to provide the funds to achieve this worthy goal. But, I believe there are some Senators who share my concern that we will continue to fund a system where the original goal of this 35-year-old law is no closer to being met. Instead of narrowing the achievement gap, we see the gap actually widening. Too many of our students continue to perform at low standards, with many ranking near the bottom of a list of 21 industrialized nations in many subject areas. Continued Federal funding should be implemented with the goal of closing the achievement gap, and rewarding successful schools, rather than funneling money into failing programs. If our original goal remains--closing the achievement gap--it is not unreasonable for Federal funds to be tied to strict accountability standards. Congress takes up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act every 5 years. What we do now will significantly impact the lives of all students. We cannot sit around any more waiting to see if our old programs suddenly work. In 5 years, one child will have completed his or her elementary career. Another will graduate from high school and enter our increasingly demanding technological workforce. Are we willing to let another 5 years go by before making real changes? Are we willing to allow another child to be pushed through a failing system? I am not, and that is why the provisions and initiatives incorporated in this bill must be supported. Education is the key that unlocks the future for our children, our State, our Nation, and there is no higher priority. I support the Educational Opportunities Act, which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and I urge my colleagues to work together to pass a bill we can all take pride in supporting.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I bring your attention to the recent accomplishments of Lucas Moller. Lucas is 11 years old, a student of Russell Elementary School in Moscow, Idaho, and is currently helping NASA scientists develop sensitive and complex space equipment. In December of 1999, Lucas was selected by the Planetary Society to have his invention used by NASA scientists on the Mars Surveyor 2001 mission. Mr. President, I know you join Idaho and myself in extending to Lucas congratulations on this achievement. The Planetary Society asked kindergarten through 12th-grade students to design an experiment that would enhance the Mars Surveyor mission. After learning of this contest, Lucas studied the mission to determine what he could build. What Lucas came up with was both simple and ingenious. He constructed a thimble-sized cylinder designed to help scientists test the angle at which Martian dust falls off space equipment. This invention will allow scientists to learn what angle to position their equipment to prevent dust collecting and interfering with experiments. When Lucas is not working with the Nation's top scientists on space exploration, he is developing his character with such distinguished organizations as the Boy Scouts. He excels at math and science and is involved in the gifted and talented program at school. Mr. President, Lucas Moller is an outstanding example of what Idaho students can do with the proper encouragement and dedication. He is a role model for students and scientists of all ages and I am proud that he will represent his family and state in future space exploration. I know you and my colleagues in the Senate join me in offering our congratulations to Lucas.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill due for its second reading.

Mr. CRAPO. I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to bring your attention to the recent accomplishment of the Wittman family from my home state of Idaho. Today, they will be receiving the Millennium Farm/Ranch Family Award for agricultural and forestry stewardship. I know you join Idaho and myself in extending to the Wittman family congratulations on this achievement. The Wittman family has worked their land near Lapwai, Idaho since the early 1920's. They have used that knowledge to give us an on the ground perspective when we have written farm policy. Most recently, their views helped shape the reforms made to the crop insurance program. Wittman Farms is a fourth-generation family farm operation using sound conservation and stewardship practices. In 1988, the family joined forces with the nearby Valley Boys and Girls Clubs to build ``Camp Wittman,'' a totally solar-powered destination where students and educators can share in a hands-on environmental experience to learn farming practices in the mountain meadow environment of the Palouse. The Wittman Family has given to our youth, our educators, our local and national governments, and broken ground for more than just the purposes of next year's crop. In these tough times for farmers, agriculture needs leaders who indeed look to the future while learning from the past. I am proud to honor the Wittman family as a Millennium Farm/Ranch Family Award winners and proud to call them fellow Idahoans. It is indeed my pleasure as an Idaho Senator to honor the Wittman family as agriculture pioneers for Idaho--and to thank them for contributing so much to our next millennium in Agriculture. I know you and my colleagues in the Senate join me in offering our congratulations to the Wittman family. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I am pleased to introduce today, with my colleague Senator Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, the ``Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000'' in response to a fast track rulemaking process undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to the total maximum daily load, or TMDL, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permit programs under the Clean Water Act. The concerns over this rule are far too great and EPA is moving far too quickly for Congress to stand aside and allow this regulation to move ahead. My disagreement with the proposed rule is not its basic objective, which is aimed at cleaning up our Nation's waters--but the hurried approach EPA has elected to take, and their refusal to address the very numerous, very real concerns of states, cities, and stakeholders. Huge strides have been made in cleaning up our nation's waters since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, particularly in the area of point source pollutants. But clearly, our work is not finished in trying to make our lakes, rivers and streams ``fishable and swimmable.'' More must be done to improve water quality, and more must especially be done to provide additional resources to address nonpoint source pollution, which, so far, has not received anywhere near the kind of funding that has been focused on discharges from point sources. In the past month and a half, we have held two hearings on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule with respect to total maximum daily loads and the NPDES permit programs. The same subject has been examined in four other Congressional hearings by three separate committees. What we have collectively learned in these hearings about EPA's proposed rule is nothing short of alarming. States have responded with universal concern to this proposed rule that saddles them with enormous regulatory burdens and exorbitant costs in carrying out their water quality management programs. Not only is this proposed onerous and costly to implement, but States have testified that it is not likely to improve water quality, and, in fact, may have a detrimental effect on States with existing programs that have proven to be successful. We would prefer not to be introducing this bill today. We have been holding hearings. I have been communicating with EPA--as have dozens of other Members of Congress expressing their grave concern with the proposed rule. We would prefer that Congress be working through these very important and challenging issues in collaboration with EPA. But holding hearings and attempting to work with EPA to resolve issues of concern, or urging them to take a more thoughtful, even-handed approach is no longer a reasonable course of action when the EPA steadfastly continues to insist on fast tracking a rule that has been the subject of such widespread concern and criticism. When EPA issued this proposed regulation last August, we were all surprised at the boldness of the agency to publish the rule: During the Congressional recess; and Provide only a 60-day comment period on such as massive and complex rulemaking. Not only did the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee request an extension of the comment period, but Congress was actually forced to enact legislation to compel EPA to listen. The EPA was forced to extend its comment period. EPA received more than 30,000 public comments on the proposed rule, and, as I said earlier, this rule has been the subject of six Congressional hearings. To date, I do not see any evidence that EPA is listening. As recently as last week, EPA communicated that it had negotiated a 60-day OMB review--what is usually at least a 90-day review on major rulemaking efforts--and that it intends to finalize the rule by June 30. The intransigence of the EPA is both unexplainable and unacceptable. If EPA is serious about ramming this regulation through by June 30, it is our intention to send them a loud message--Congress insists instead that they take a deep breath with respect to this rule. The bill Senator Smith and I are introducing today--the Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act--takes important steps toward achieving additional reductions in water pollution now, and providing the science necessary for better implementation of the TMDL program in the future. In the hearings I held, witnesses raised three main concerns with respect to the proposed rule. They cited: States' lack of reliable data for developing their 303(d) list of impaired waters; The scarce public resources available for addressing nonpoint pollution in particular; and EPA's overreach of its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act in controlling water quality management programs administered by States. This bill addresses those three issues without amending current law or regulation. The Water Pollution Program Enhancement Act authorizes significantly increased funding for sections 106 and 319 under the Clean Water Act. Funding under section 106 would be made available to the States and specifically directed to: Collect reliable monitoring data; Improve their lists of impaired waters; Prepare TMDLs; and Develop watershed management strategies. Of the $500 million available for implementation of section 319, $200 million is required to be made available by the States for grants to private landowners to carry out projects that will improve water quality. These funds are specifically being made available to farmers, ranches, family forestland managers and others, to conduct activities on their lands that contribute to cleaning up rivers, lakes and streams. These significant increases in funding will achieve on-the-ground results and have a very real effect in improving our nation's water quality. Second, the bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a report on: The quality of the science used to develop and implement TMDLs; The costs associated with implementing TMDLs; and The availability of alternative programs or mechanisms to reduce the discharge of pollutants from point sources and nonpoint source pollution. If there is one message I have heard loud and clear, it is that we lack basic and necessary data about TMDLs and how to implement the TMDL program that achieves the goal of improving water quality, provides States flexibility in administering their programs, and is cost effective. It is irresponsible of EPA to push ahead in finalizing this regulation when we do not have the answers to such basic questions about this program. Third, the bill provides for innovation and collaboration by establishing a pilot program in which five states are selected to implement a three-year program that examines alternative strategies and incentives to reduce the discharge of pollutants and TMDLs. This pilot program will provide us with valuable information about how we might think outside the box to solve our water quality problems. Finally, this legislation requires EPA to postpone its rulemaking and review the National Academy of Sciences study before publishing its final rule on the TMDL program. Despite EPA's assertions to the contrary, we know that the proposed rule would have enormous implications for States, cities and stakeholders. It is absolutely critical that we know more about the science of TMDLs before finalizing this rule, and EPA has given Congress no other choice but to compel them to do so. Congress has an obligation to intercede and resolve these issues crucial to the health of our people and our environment. I urge my colleagues to join me in cleaning up our nation's waters through the reasonable and balanced provisions included in the Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I am pleased to introduce today, with my colleague Senator Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, the ``Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000'' in response to a fast track rulemaking process undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to the total maximum daily load, or TMDL, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permit programs under the Clean Water Act. The concerns over this rule are far too great and EPA is moving far too quickly for Congress to stand aside and allow this regulation to move ahead. My disagreement with the proposed rule is not its basic objective, which is aimed at cleaning up our Nation's waters--but the hurried approach EPA has elected to take, and their refusal to address the very numerous, very real concerns of states, cities, and stakeholders. Huge strides have been made in cleaning up our nation's waters since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, particularly in the area of point source pollutants. But clearly, our work is not finished in trying to make our lakes, rivers and streams ``fishable and swimmable.'' More must be done to improve water quality, and more must especially be done to provide additional resources to address nonpoint source pollution, which, so far, has not received anywhere near the kind of funding that has been focused on discharges from point sources. In the past month and a half, we have held two hearings on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule with respect to total maximum daily loads and the NPDES permit programs. The same subject has been examined in four other Congressional hearings by three separate committees. What we have collectively learned in these hearings about EPA's proposed rule is nothing short of alarming. States have responded with universal concern to this proposed rule that saddles them with enormous regulatory burdens and exorbitant costs in carrying out their water quality management programs. Not only is this proposed onerous and costly to implement, but States have testified that it is not likely to improve water quality, and, in fact, may have a detrimental effect on States with existing programs that have proven to be successful. We would prefer not to be introducing this bill today. We have been holding hearings. I have been communicating with EPA--as have dozens of other Members of Congress expressing their grave concern with the proposed rule. We would prefer that Congress be working through these very important and challenging issues in collaboration with EPA. But holding hearings and attempting to work with EPA to resolve issues of concern, or urging them to take a more thoughtful, even-handed approach is no longer a reasonable course of action when the EPA steadfastly continues to insist on fast tracking a rule that has been the subject of such widespread concern and criticism. When EPA issued this proposed regulation last August, we were all surprised at the boldness of the agency to publish the rule: During the Congressional recess; and Provide only a 60-day comment period on such as massive and complex rulemaking. Not only did the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee request an extension of the comment period, but Congress was actually forced to enact legislation to compel EPA to listen. The EPA was forced to extend its comment period. EPA received more than 30,000 public comments on the proposed rule, and, as I said earlier, this rule has been the subject of six Congressional hearings. To date, I do not see any evidence that EPA is listening. As recently as last week, EPA communicated that it had negotiated a 60-day OMB review--what is usually at least a 90-day review on major rulemaking efforts--and that it intends to finalize the rule by June 30. The intransigence of the EPA is both unexplainable and unacceptable. If EPA is serious about ramming this regulation through by June 30, it is our intention to send them a loud message--Congress insists instead that they take a deep breath with respect to this rule. The bill Senator Smith and I are introducing today--the Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act--takes important steps toward achieving additional reductions in water pollution now, and providing the science necessary for better implementation of the TMDL program in the future. In the hearings I held, witnesses raised three main concerns with respect to the proposed rule. They cited: States' lack of reliable data for developing their 303(d) list of impaired waters; The scarce public resources available for addressing nonpoint pollution in particular; and EPA's overreach of its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act in controlling water quality management programs administered by States. This bill addresses those three issues without amending current law or regulation. The Water Pollution Program Enhancement Act authorizes significantly increased funding for sections 106 and 319 under the Clean Water Act. Funding under section 106 would be made available to the States and specifically directed to: Collect reliable monitoring data; Improve their lists of impaired waters; Prepare TMDLs; and Develop watershed management strategies. Of the $500 million available for implementation of section 319, $200 million is required to be made available by the States for grants to private landowners to carry out projects that will improve water quality. These funds are specifically being made available to farmers, ranches, family forestland managers and others, to conduct activities on their lands that contribute to cleaning up rivers, lakes and streams. These significant increases in funding will achieve on-the-ground results and have a very real effect in improving our nation's water quality. Second, the bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a report on: The quality of the science used to develop and implement TMDLs; The costs associated with implementing TMDLs; and The availability of alternative programs or mechanisms to reduce the discharge of pollutants from point sources and nonpoint source pollution. If there is one message I have heard loud and clear, it is that we lack basic and necessary data about TMDLs and how to implement the TMDL program that achieves the goal of improving water quality, provides States flexibility in administering their programs, and is cost effective. It is irresponsible of EPA to push ahead in finalizing this regulation when we do not have the answers to such basic questions about this program. Third, the bill provides for innovation and collaboration by establishing a pilot program in which five states are selected to implement a three-year program that examines alternative strategies and incentives to reduce the discharge of pollutants and TMDLs. This pilot program will provide us with valuable information about how we might think outside the box to solve our water quality problems. Finally, this legislation requires EPA to postpone its rulemaking and review the National Academy of Sciences study before publishing its final rule on the TMDL program. Despite EPA's assertions to the contrary, we know that the proposed rule would have enormous implications for States, cities and stakeholders. It is absolutely critical that we know more about the science of TMDLs before finalizing this rule, and EPA has given Congress no other choice but to compel them to do so. Congress has an obligation to intercede and resolve these issues crucial to the health of our people and our environment. I urge my colleagues to join me in cleaning up our nation's waters through the reasonable and balanced provisions included in the Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2 p.m. with the time until 12:30 p.m. for general statements and bill introductions. At 12:30 debate regarding the marriage tax penalty will occur prior to the cloture vote scheduled to occur at 2 p.m. Senators should be aware that if cloture is not invoked on the substitute, there will be a second cloture vote on the underlying measure. Therefore, there could be up to two votes at 2 p.m. Following the votes, the Senate is expected to consider the budget resolution conference report with a final vote expected this evening. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to accommodate the weekly party conference meetings. When the Senate reconvenes, there will be 10 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on invoking cloture on S. 2285, the Federal fuels tax holiday. Therefore, Senators can expect that the vote will occur at 2:25 p.m. By previous consent, all second-degree amendments must be filed by 2:20 p.m. today. If cloture is not invoked, it is hoped the Senate can begin consideration of the marriage tax penalty bill. As announced by the majority leader, the Senate will consider the budget conference report as soon as it becomes available later this week. It is also possible for the Senate to consider executive nominations before the Senate adjourns for the Easter recess. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 57, I voted ``aye.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as a ``nay.'' This would not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Water Adjudication Fee Fairness Act of 2000. 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 Forest Service's claims. On the eve of the objective deadline, the U.S. withdrew all but 71 of the claims--the Department of Justices' 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 the bill be printed in the Record.

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. The national Project SEARCH (Special Environmental Assistance for the Regulation of Communities and Habitat) concept is based on a demonstration program that has been operating with great success in Idaho in 1999 and 2000. In short, the bill establishes a simplified application process for communities of under 2,500 individuals to receive assistance in 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 grant 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 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 demonstration 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. A Native American community, a migrant community, and 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 overwhelming 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.

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. The national Project SEARCH (Special Environmental Assistance for the Regulation of Communities and Habitat) concept is based on a demonstration program that has been operating with great success in Idaho in 1999 and 2000. In short, the bill establishes a simplified application process for communities of under 2,500 individuals to receive assistance in 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 grant 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 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 demonstration 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. A Native American community, a migrant community, and 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 overwhelming 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.