Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business until 12 noon today with the time equally divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I applaud Senator Smith, the new chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for this effort on behalf of the Senate to honor our late friend, John Chafee. Although not widely-known,the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) statute is an important component of our national commitment to balancing the needs of our environment, minimizing risks to human life, and fiscal responsibility. Being such a careful balance, the act reflects John Chafee's approach to legislating--fair, deliberate, and environmentally conscious. In 1982, the then-chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, Senator Chafee, became the leading champion of efforts to address problems caused by development on highly erodible coastal areas. The CBRA concept took a unique approach to protecting these coastal areas, not by instituting a wide range of new federal regulations as some suggested, but by prohibiting certain federal spending that could promote development that would not otherwise take place. Subsequent reauthorization of the act in 1990 significantly expanded the CBRA System and incorporated ``Otherwise Protected Areas'' into the protective umbrella. Today, the CBRA System includes 585 units and 274 OPAs, comprising over 3 million acres of coastal barriers. CBRA does not prohibit development in coastal areas, nor deny private or non-federal funds from being spent even with the CBRA System. It does, however, protect taxpayer dollars--including flood insurance, loans, grants, and assisting infrastructure projects--from being spent on development projects in areas where the very instability of the terrain makes development a risky proposition. It also discourages development in areas where human life is at increased risk from the full force of coastal weather events. A General Accounting Office report from 1992 underscores the successes and challenges of the system. Although CBRA's restrictions have discouraged development in some units, saving taxpayer dollars, other units have seen development pressures result in new construction projects. Senator Chafee's long leadership on this issue has demonstrated the vitality of the idea of protecting important environmental areas without putting restrictions on private actions. As Chairman of the successor subcommittee with jurisdiction over CBRA and a staunch defender of creative solutions to problems affecting our environment, I look forward to helping advance John Chafee's legacy by supporting this measure and working to enact his last introduced bill, S. 1752. Mr. President, S. 1752, the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act, was introduced by our late Chairman before his passing and would update the underlying law for the 21st Century by coupling current mapping technology with new advances in digital cartography and by establishing statutory clarity in describing which areas are covered by the CBRA System. In closing, I commend Senator Smith and Senator Baucus for their commitment to honoring John Chafee by naming the CBRA System for him. John Chafee was truly a man of vision with a gentle spirit that made the difficult tasks in Congress that much more easy. His presence had a calming influence when so often discussions became overheated in this Chamber or in the Environment and Public Works Committee. No one can replace him, but others should and will try to follow his example. He will be truly missed.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I respectfully request of the chairman that we engage in a colloquy regarding section 502(b), which describes the opt-out notice required by subtitle A. I would like to clarify that a financial institutions' obligation to send an opt-out notice under this subtitle is satisfied when it has complied with notification requirements regarding privacy policies and practices under section 503, and the consumer is further given the right to direct that their non-public personal information not be disclosed to non-affiliated third parties. A separate opt-out notice need not be provided for each third party disclosure, provided that the consumer receives a prior clear and conspicuous opt-out opportunity covering third party disclosures generally.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany the financial services modernization bill. There are approximately 6 hours of debate remaining under the order. Therefore, Senators can expect a vote on adoption of the conference report this afternoon. As a reminder, the newest Member of the Senate, Lincoln Chafee, will be sworn in today at 11:30 a.m. in the Senate Chamber. The majority leader encourages all of his colleagues to come to the floor to extend a warm welcome to our new colleague from Rhode Island. For the remainder of the week, the Senate will consider appropriations bills as they become available and may also consider the bankruptcy reform bill if an agreement can be reached. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the pending Ashcroft amendment to H.R. 434, the African trade bill. As a reminder, there will be a cloture vote on the substitute amendment 1 hour after convening tomorrow. It is still hoped that an agreement can be reached to allow the Senate to complete action on this trade bill by the end of the week. The Senate may also consider any legislative or executive items cleared for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to join so many of my colleagues in making a few remarks about our colleague, Senator John Chafee. As we all know, many of us have risen over the last 2 days to speak of our memories of Senator Chafee and the friendships we have developed with him over the years. Because of my short time in the Senate, my experiences with Senator Chafee are more limited, but I have had ample time to observe Senator Chafee as the good, kind, and honorable man so many of my colleagues have spoken about in the last couple of days. I can recall when I first came to the Senate and we were organizing. I wondered what my committee assignments would be. John Chafee, knowing of the interest of Idaho in natural resource issues, came to me and said I ought to try to get on the Environment and Public Works Committee which he chaired. I said: I would love to work with you on that committee. When the appropriate opportunity to make a selection came along, I ultimately did, make that choice and had the chance to work with Senator Chafee. John Chafee represented what is good about American politics. Senator Chafee was a man of the highest principles and utmost integrity. The Washington Post referred to him as ``a gentle but stubborn champion.'' That is exactly right. I was remarking to one of our colleagues as we walked back from the Capitol Building after a matter of business earlier today that John was always friendly and helpful and was such a kind man, but he was also a firm man in championing the principles he advocated. I believe that description of him, ``a gentle but stubborn champion,'' is a very apt way to describe him. John Chafee was deeply committed to the issues he undertook to fight for, and, at the same time, he was always a gentleman and a statesman. Senator Chafee was instantaneously a likable person. Part of his charm was he was entirely unassuming and friendly. Perhaps what made his demeanor more unique was he had enjoyed such an impressive career. Senator Chafee clearly worked hard to make a difference throughout his entire life. His career accomplishments were extraordinary, but then he was an extraordinary man. These things have already been said, but I want to repeat them. He served in World War II at Guadalcanal and Korea. He was a graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School and served in the Rhode Island House of Representatives and as Governor of Rhode Island. In 1969, he was appointed Secretary of the Navy and served in that post for 3\1/2\ years during one of the most critical times in our history. Senator Chafee's life's work has been furthering the issues he believed would make America a better place. His commitment to the issues and his good nature are what I will miss the most. I knew if I needed to talk with someone who would have a unique and heartfelt perspective on an issue we were debating, all I had to do was sit down at his desk, where there are now flowers, and talk to John. He would have thought through the issue carefully and whatever his position on it, he would have a good, balanced, thoughtful reason for it. I particularly want to share some of the personal experiences I have had with him. Being from a different part of the country--I come from the West and John comes from the Northeast--it is no secret those of us from different parts of the country often approach environmental issues and some of the natural resource issues in a different way, and that was true about John and me on some of the issues. We found a lot of common ground where we worked together, and we found those issues where we were different. What was always remarkable to me is that he was always willing to work with me to try to understand my point of view and to see if the issues and concerns of the people I represent in Idaho could be squared with the issues and the concerns of the people he represented in Rhode Island, and if the interests of the Nation could be brought together in a solution that found common ground, that was one of his strengths. I note he always engaged the people in our hearings in a friendly fashion that made them feel at home and at ease. He took a direct interest in legislation and in each committee member's personal interest in legislation which was important to them. He personally worked closely with me on legislation on which we found we could develop common ground. It is because he chose to make his life one of service that so many people today stand in honor of him. America truly lost one of our great leaders. I believe he stands as a tremendous example to all of us of the kind of difference you can make if you are willing to put your life into the service of the people of this country. John Chafee truly did that. On behalf of all of us in America, I say thank you.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Executive Orders Limitation Act of 1999. A growing number of Americans have expressed concern that President Clinton has sought to bypass the constitutional role of Congress by issuing Executive orders or proclamations that have the force of law and the practical impact of law. Indeed, the use of Executive orders has increased dramatically. For example, the first 24 Presidents issued 1,262 Executive orders, whereas the last 17 Presidents have issued 11,798 orders. The bill I introduce today seeks to strengthen article I of the Constitution which grants all legislative powers to the Congress. The bill seeks to strengthen our system of checks and balances by ensuring that all Executive orders are based on the President's expressed constitutional or statutory authority. The bill would require the President to cite the exact constitutional or statutory authority he is exercising when he issues an Executive order. It would require the publication of a cost-benefit analysis and a public comment period before an Executive order can take effect. The act would also provide for expedited judicial review of questionable Executive orders. The Congress has previously set limits on the President's ability to issue Executive orders when it required that all orders be printed in the Federal Register. My bill would not in any way limit the President's ability to issue an Executive order which he has the constitutional right to issue. The Executive Orders Limitation Act of 1999 seeks to preserve the constitutional separation of powers by safeguarding Congress' legislative power, while at the same time protecting the President's constitutional and statutory authorities. The question of how a law is enacted in America was one of the most important and significant debates in our constitutional convention. That is why we have a system of government established under our Constitution by which it is the Congress that makes the law that governs this Nation. The President then decides, as he has the right to do, whether to sign that law or not. We do not have a system where one man or even one branch of our Government has the ability to unilaterally create law. Yet that is what the practical effect of the use of Executive orders has become in today's timeframe in the way that President Clinton has begun using these Executive order powers. This legislation will bring appropriate controls to the issue. If the President has constitutional or statutorily delegated authority to issue Executive orders in a given area, those authorities and those rights are preserved. But in those areas where Congress or the Constitution have not given the President the authority to enact and act as though he were imposing new legal requirements, then that is prohibited. This legislation is critical. It should not be deemed a threat to anyone from any particular perspective on any issue. It should be deemed what it is, an effort to restore the balance of power and the system of government, in particular the system of making laws our constitutional founders intended when they created the Constitution of this country.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Executive Orders Limitation Act of 1999. A growing number of Americans have expressed concern that President Clinton has sought to bypass the constitutional role of Congress by issuing Executive orders or proclamations that have the force of law and the practical impact of law. Indeed, the use of Executive orders has increased dramatically. For example, the first 24 Presidents issued 1,262 Executive orders, whereas the last 17 Presidents have issued 11,798 orders. The bill I introduce today seeks to strengthen article I of the Constitution which grants all legislative powers to the Congress. The bill seeks to strengthen our system of checks and balances by ensuring that all Executive orders are based on the President's expressed constitutional or statutory authority. The bill would require the President to cite the exact constitutional or statutory authority he is exercising when he issues an Executive order. It would require the publication of a cost-benefit analysis and a public comment period before an Executive order can take effect. The act would also provide for expedited judicial review of questionable Executive orders. The Congress has previously set limits on the President's ability to issue Executive orders when it required that all orders be printed in the Federal Register. My bill would not in any way limit the President's ability to issue an Executive order which he has the constitutional right to issue. The Executive Orders Limitation Act of 1999 seeks to preserve the constitutional separation of powers by safeguarding Congress' legislative power, while at the same time protecting the President's constitutional and statutory authorities. The question of how a law is enacted in America was one of the most important and significant debates in our constitutional convention. That is why we have a system of government established under our Constitution by which it is the Congress that makes the law that governs this Nation. The President then decides, as he has the right to do, whether to sign that law or not. We do not have a system where one man or even one branch of our Government has the ability to unilaterally create law. Yet that is what the practical effect of the use of Executive orders has become in today's timeframe in the way that President Clinton has begun using these Executive order powers. This legislation will bring appropriate controls to the issue. If the President has constitutional or statutorily delegated authority to issue Executive orders in a given area, those authorities and those rights are preserved. But in those areas where Congress or the Constitution have not given the President the authority to enact and act as though he were imposing new legal requirements, then that is prohibited. This legislation is critical. It should not be deemed a threat to anyone from any particular perspective on any issue. It should be deemed what it is, an effort to restore the balance of power and the system of government, in particular the system of making laws our constitutional founders intended when they created the Constitution of this country.

Mr. CRAPO

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

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Dietary Supplement Fairness in Labeling and Advertising Act. The purpose of the legislation is to reaffirm Congress' intent in enacting the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA). In enacting DSHEA, Congress intended to insure that all Americans had access to factual information about vitamins and other dietary supplements so that they can make informed decisions about their health and well-being. In recent years, the prevalence of scientific data demonstrating the benefits of proper nutrition, education, and appropriate use of dietary supplements to promote long-term health has increased tremendously. Additionally, preventative practices, including the safe consumption of dietary supplements, has been shown to significantly reduce the health- care expenditures in this country. That is why I continue to support research efforts that focus on preventative care. The role government funding can have in achieving scientific and medical gains in crucial. Past successes have frequently led to rapid technological advancements in medicine, biotechnology, and other important areas that shape our lives. Over 100 million people use dietary supplements daily throughout the United States. This bill that I am introducing would allow access by the public to solid scientific research about the safe and proper use of dietary supplements. It prevents the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from promulgating rules that change the intent of congressional regulations regarding structure and function claims and would amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that certain types of advertisements for dietary supplements are proper. DSHEA required the FDA to promulgate reasonable guidelines to regulate the content of dietary supplements labels. The goal of this requirement is to insure that the labels give consumers information necessary for them to decide whether they want to take a particular supplement, without making claims regarding medical or disease benefits (which are reserved for FDA-approved drugs). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently enforces a standard for advertising that conflicts with the intent of DSHEA. The FTC does not always allow the same information in advertising of dietary supplements that is allowed in labeling of the same products. For instance, the FTC has made it difficult to advertise the benefits of calcium, vitamin C, and other common and heavily studied supplements. The information that the FDA allows as part of the labeling of a dietary supplement should also be allowed in advertising that same supplement, yet the FTC is seeking to regulate the advertising of dietary supplements by denying to consumers some of the very information that DSHEA required the FDA to let them use. This forces manufacturers to work under two sets of contradictory regulations and undermines the intent of Congress. Additionally, this bill would instruct the FDA to withdraw the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register of April 29, 1998, which attempts to regulate the types of statements made concerning the effects of dietary supplements on the structure or function of the body. The FDA is asserting responsibilities beyond congressional intent. Specifically, it is seeking to change the definition of ``disease'' by deeming improper any claim that refers to the ``prevention or treatment of abnormal functions.'' In these cases, the product would be subject to regulation as a drug, rather than a dietary supplement. Furthermore, it was never Congress' intent to disallow the use of citations from credible scientific publications in providing accurate information in labeling of dietary supplements. Numerous, common sense examples can be made to demonstrate the irresponsible nature of this rule. Aging and pregnancy would now be considered diseases under the policy. In passing this legislation, my hope is to continue to open up communication and provide access to fair and adequate reviews of all claims. This bill prescribes a method by which the Commission must act prior to filing a complaint that initiates any administrative or judicial proceeding alleging noncompliance by an advertiser. Simply, the FTC would be required to provide a full and fair opportunity for advertisers to consult with the Commission's scientific experts. Decisions about the use of dietary supplements should not be made by bureaucrats. Instead, meetings with scientific experts would provide for an open exchange of ideas and information, and ensure that decisions are based on concrete, substantial scientific evidence. This is good government practice, and during a time where our society has become far too litigious, I support strengthening the review process, prior to filing any claims or complaints. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Dietary Supplement Fairness in Labeling and Advertising Act. It would insure that all Americans have access to factual information about vitamins and other dietary supplements so they can make informed decisions about their health and well-being, while continuing to provide adequate safeguards to protect the public good.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Dietary Supplement Fairness in Labeling and Advertising Act. The purpose of the legislation is to reaffirm Congress' intent in enacting the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA). In enacting DSHEA, Congress intended to insure that all Americans had access to factual information about vitamins and other dietary supplements so that they can make informed decisions about their health and well-being. In recent years, the prevalence of scientific data demonstrating the benefits of proper nutrition, education, and appropriate use of dietary supplements to promote long-term health has increased tremendously. Additionally, preventative practices, including the safe consumption of dietary supplements, has been shown to significantly reduce the health- care expenditures in this country. That is why I continue to support research efforts that focus on preventative care. The role government funding can have in achieving scientific and medical gains in crucial. Past successes have frequently led to rapid technological advancements in medicine, biotechnology, and other important areas that shape our lives. Over 100 million people use dietary supplements daily throughout the United States. This bill that I am introducing would allow access by the public to solid scientific research about the safe and proper use of dietary supplements. It prevents the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from promulgating rules that change the intent of congressional regulations regarding structure and function claims and would amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that certain types of advertisements for dietary supplements are proper. DSHEA required the FDA to promulgate reasonable guidelines to regulate the content of dietary supplements labels. The goal of this requirement is to insure that the labels give consumers information necessary for them to decide whether they want to take a particular supplement, without making claims regarding medical or disease benefits (which are reserved for FDA-approved drugs). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) currently enforces a standard for advertising that conflicts with the intent of DSHEA. The FTC does not always allow the same information in advertising of dietary supplements that is allowed in labeling of the same products. For instance, the FTC has made it difficult to advertise the benefits of calcium, vitamin C, and other common and heavily studied supplements. The information that the FDA allows as part of the labeling of a dietary supplement should also be allowed in advertising that same supplement, yet the FTC is seeking to regulate the advertising of dietary supplements by denying to consumers some of the very information that DSHEA required the FDA to let them use. This forces manufacturers to work under two sets of contradictory regulations and undermines the intent of Congress. Additionally, this bill would instruct the FDA to withdraw the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register of April 29, 1998, which attempts to regulate the types of statements made concerning the effects of dietary supplements on the structure or function of the body. The FDA is asserting responsibilities beyond congressional intent. Specifically, it is seeking to change the definition of ``disease'' by deeming improper any claim that refers to the ``prevention or treatment of abnormal functions.'' In these cases, the product would be subject to regulation as a drug, rather than a dietary supplement. Furthermore, it was never Congress' intent to disallow the use of citations from credible scientific publications in providing accurate information in labeling of dietary supplements. Numerous, common sense examples can be made to demonstrate the irresponsible nature of this rule. Aging and pregnancy would now be considered diseases under the policy. In passing this legislation, my hope is to continue to open up communication and provide access to fair and adequate reviews of all claims. This bill prescribes a method by which the Commission must act prior to filing a complaint that initiates any administrative or judicial proceeding alleging noncompliance by an advertiser. Simply, the FTC would be required to provide a full and fair opportunity for advertisers to consult with the Commission's scientific experts. Decisions about the use of dietary supplements should not be made by bureaucrats. Instead, meetings with scientific experts would provide for an open exchange of ideas and information, and ensure that decisions are based on concrete, substantial scientific evidence. This is good government practice, and during a time where our society has become far too litigious, I support strengthening the review process, prior to filing any claims or complaints. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Dietary Supplement Fairness in Labeling and Advertising Act. It would insure that all Americans have access to factual information about vitamins and other dietary supplements so they can make informed decisions about their health and well-being, while continuing to provide adequate safeguards to protect the public good.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 14, the Senate begin consideration of the DOD appropriations conference report; that it be considered read, and there be 60 minutes equally divided between Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, or their designees, with an additional 10 minutes under the control of Senator McCain. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of the time, the conference report be laid aside, and a vote on adoption occur at 4 p.m. on Thursday.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, before I yield the floor to the managers of this legislation, let me announce that there will be no further rollcall votes this evening. Tomorrow morning we hope to consider the Defense appropriations conference report under a short time agreement. However, that rollcall vote will be postponed to occur at 4 p.m. We will then resume consideration of the campaign finance reform bill on Thursday, and I hope that substantial progress can be made on that bill during tomorrow's session.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now begin consideration of Calendar No. 312, S. 1593.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to legislative session and a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAPO

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

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1692, which was introduced earlier today by Senator Santorum, is at the desk. I therefore ask for its first reading.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I now ask for the bill's second reading, and on behalf of Members of the other side of the aisle, I object to my own request.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. unless an agreement is reached for the consideration of the energy and water appropriations conference report. It is hoped the Senate will begin that conference report at approximately 11 a.m. for 45 minutes of debate. If that agreement is reached, Senators may anticipate that the first rollcall vote will occur at approximately 11:45 a.m. Following the party conference meetings, the Senate may begin consideration of the digital millennium legislation or any conference reports or appropriations bills available for action while waiting for the continuing resolution from the House. Therefore, Senators may anticipate votes throughout the day. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to two groups of exceptional young men from my State of Idaho. In August, the South Central Boise Little League team from Boise, ID, became the first little league team from Idaho ever to compete in the Little League World Series. Under the leadership of Stan McGrady, this team of 11-and 12-year-olds completed an underdog run to win the Western Regional Pennant and advance to the Little League World Series in Williamsport, PA. They won one game and lost two in the World Series, but, more importantly, showed an impressive amount of maturity and sportsmanship and represented our state in an exemplary manner. Furthermore, the Madison Cats of Rexburg, ID, ended a successful season by competing in the Babe Ruth League World Series in Clifton Park, NY. This team of 14-year-olds, coached by Randy Sutton, went undefeated in both the state and regional tournaments to earn the right to represent the Pacific Northwest in the Babe Ruth World Series. Along with the entire State of Idaho, I am very proud of these young men. Their accomplishments show a level of dedication and teamwork that will benefit them for many years to come. They were exceptional ambassadors for Idaho. I congratulate them, their parents, and their communities on these unprecedented accomplishments.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I am introducing a very important piece of legislation, the Surface Transportation Board Improvement Act, which is aimed at correcting an injustice for railroad workers, shippers and anyone who have a contractual relationship with a railroad. Basically, my bill would end the onerous procedure of the Surface Transportation Board to override, modify, or cancel collective bargaining agreements between railroads and their employees. Collective bargaining agreements go to the very essence of the labor relations process. They are the result of hard-fought deliberations between labor and management, and of a give-and-take process which often results in no winners or losers. While the process is not perfect, collective bargaining agreements do not come lightly and they should be honored-- not subject to change by a federal agency. In 1920, Congress determined that railroad mergers and consolidations should be subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction through the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). To effect that intent, Congress gave an exemption from antitrust laws, other federal laws, State and municipal laws to railroads participating in a transaction approved by the ICC. However, what was good policy in 1920 no longer works today because the language used to effect that policy is too broad giving rise to unfair application. Unfortunately, the exemption provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act have been extended beyond the limited area of removing inconsistent State and municipal regulations governing railroad mergers and consolidations. Instead, they now are used to override contracts between railroads and their employees and railroads and other parties, such as shippers. Since 1983, the ICC and its successor the Surface Transportation Board (STB) have used the exemption to override, modify, or cancel collective bargaining agreements between railroads and their employees. The Board has not confined these overrides, while unacceptable under any circumstances, to the period surrounding the ICC or STB approval of a transaction. If fact, the exemption has been used to modify and cancel collective bargaining agreements more than thirty years after the initial approval of the railroad consolidation. Recently, the STB has used the same exemption provisions to override contracts between shippers and railroads. This wide ranging power in a federal agency is unprecedented and needs to be remedied. What we need is a balance. Contracts freely entered should be considered inviolate and subject to governmental intrusion in only the most important and rare circumstances. A railroad merger does not reach that level of importance. No one can show a legitimate present need to treat railroads any differently from other modes of transportation when it comes to their honoring contractual commitments. My bill restores a balance that existed between 1920 and 1983 by making it clear that the federal interest in regulating rail mergers and consolidations does not extend to upsetting settled contractual relationships between the regulated party, the railroads, and others. The specific remedies provided by this bill are straightforward. First, the exemption is limited to inconsistent State and municipal regulations of rail mergers and consolidations. That was a primary goal of Congress in 1920 and is preserved here. The antitrust exemption is lifted because in this era of mega-rail carriers, there is no reason future railroad mergers and consolidations should not be treated the same as mergers and consolidations in other modes of transportation. Congress gave the antitrust exemption to the railroad industry in 1920 following a period of governmental control triggered, in part, because of the rail industry's general economic instability. In 1920, the federal governmental interest supported rail mergers because they seemed the key to a stable mode of transportation in an essential sector of the economy. Given the general economic health of the Class I rail carriers coupled with the recent round of mergers/acquisitions in both West and East, no one can honestly claim further railroad consolidation is necessarily in the public interest. Second, my bill ends the STB's foray into labor relations. From the date of enactment, all future transactions involving the merger of work forces proposed by rail carriers under employee protective conditions previously imposed by the ICC or STB will be resolved under the dispute resolution procedures provided in the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The RLA has governed railroad labor relations since 1926 (and airlines since 1935). Congress has not amended the Act significantly since 1966 when Congress provided the means to expedite resolution of ``minor disputes'' in the industry. The manner of negotiating a change in collective bargaining agreements has been in place since 1926. While some may disagree with parts of the RLA dispute resolution process, it works and has worked for seventy-three years. My bill places resolution of force integration disputes in merger cases back into the same collective bargaining processes that govern all other changes in railroad labor relations. Federal labor policy with respect to collective bargaining, as established under the RLA, is that private agreements are reached and amended by the parties without governmental compulsion. That policy provides a process whereby labor and management can voluntarily resolve differences and enter into contracts, and rejects the notion that the government should micro-manage the substantive terms of collective bargaining agreements. In defiance of this policy, the STB, which has no experience or authority in collective bargaining, has routinely broken or modified privately negotiated employee contracts in the approval of mergers or other transactions. My bill bars the STB from making wholesale changes to or abrogating privately negotiated collective bargaining agreements. It is fair public policy that contracts should be saved and changed only when the parties sit down and agree to new terms in a fair collective bargaining setting. Mr. President, I urge all Senators to join me in support of this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Mr. Alan G. Lance for his election on September 9, 1999, as the National Commander of the American Legion. Mr. Lance is a twenty year member of the American Legion; and, has served as the Idaho State Commander, National Executive Committeeman, and National Foreign Relations Chairman. After serving in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps Mr. Lance moved to Meridian, Idaho, established a private legal practice, and was subsequently elected to the Idaho House of Representatives. He is currently serving his second term as Attorney General for the State of Idaho and is Chairman of the Conference of Western Attorneys General. Mr. Lance is the first Idahoan to serve in the distinguished position of National Commander for this respected and influencial veterans' organization. For the past eighty years the American Legion has stood tall for the rights and benefits of the men and women who have been willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and way of life. The American Legion is a major sponsor of the Boy Scouts of America and is a vital partner in community service with 15,000 posts worldwide. Mr. Lance brings legal and legislative experience which will serve him well in advocating for the needs of the American Legion's approximately 3 million members. He is a leader and a patriot, and will be a strong leader for veterans' issues, especially health care. Idaho is proud of the new National Commander. I look forward to working with Mr. Lance in helping to keep the promises made by Congress and the nation to our deserving veterans.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank Senators Gorton and Byrd for inclusion of an amendment to provide funding for a voluntary enrollment, cold water fish habitat conservation plan (HCP) in the States of Idaho and Montana. This project is already authorized under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) were authorized in 1982 to allow private landowners where endangered species are found a chance to write site-specific management plans and, in some cases, allow other activity to continue on those lands. A project similar to this involving the Karner Blue Butterfly in Wisconsin is considered an HCP success story. In Idaho alone, of the 2,639,633 acres of State-owned endowment land, over half is bull trout habitat. Wise and productive use of state endowment land is essential to the funding of education in Idaho and this use could be jeopardized should it be called into question as a ``take'' under Section 9 of the ESA. The large area comprising bull trout habitat complicates not only natural resource uses of the land, but the management strategy of involved agencies in addressing habitat for the bull trout. With the huge land area involved, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Idaho concurs that a cooperative effort will be necessary to effect management practices to benefit the bull trout. The States of Idaho and Montana have already been active in addressing bull trout habitat needs--last year, they spent nearly $1 million collectively to promote bull trout recovery. It is clear that a cooperative effort, involving the States of Idaho and Montana, the USFWS, and private forest owners will be necessary to address the challenge of providing clean, cold water for bull trout habitat. The formulation of a voluntary enrollment, state-wide HCP will provide the structure for this cooperation. HCPs have a proven record of creating tangible benefits that aid in species protection and this HCP would both protect bull trout habitat and responsible land use. For an HCP to be approved, the Secretary must find that those party to the agreement will ``to the maximum extent possible, minimize and mitigate the impacts of * * * taking'' of the species in question. In recent hearings that I have held on HCPs in my subcommittee, numerous scientists have testified to the effectiveness of HCPs in furthering on the ground improvements to the habitat of threatened and endangered species. The funds provided for in this amendment will be used to fund data collection an organization for the States to come together and negotiate the HCP. The negotiated HCP would include state- owned endowment lands and private lands enrolled voluntarily by the landowner. To arrive at the specific terms of such an agreement, a concerted effort will be needed to accumulate data and facilitate discussions that can lead to a consensus-based solution supported by all interested parties. The States of Idaho and Montana, nor the USFWS, cannot shoulder this funding burden alone. The funds provided for in this amendment are urgently needed. In addition to the overwhelming task of addressing bull trout habitat issues, the USFWS has been petitioned to list the west-slope cutthroat trout and the Yellowstone cutthroat trout. We seek, in partnership with the USFWS and the private sector, funding to develop an innovative HCP that can be a ``win'' for kids, for species, and for responsible land use.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, in the few minutes remaining, I wish to add my voice to those in opposition to this amendment. We thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his sensitivity to these issues. As he correctly said, this amendment could be devastating to the people and to the families who depend on their jobs in many counties across America. I think it is important that we understand this amendment in the context in which it is being proposed. Federal timber sales are in a steep and devastating decline. Since the early 1990s, the timber program has been reduced in America by over 70 percent. Already, more than 75 percent of the National Forest System is off limits to timber harvests. The Federal timber supply has dropped from 12 billion board feet to the 3 billion board feet being harvested today. Both the economic and the ecological context created by this reduction are not desirable. More than 80,000 jobs have been lost already, and of the 55,000 jobs that remain, they will be jeopardized by this amendment. That represents over $2 billion in employment income, mostly in rural parts of America. The families who depend on those jobs are counting on us to understand this issue and to vote correctly. It is confounding also that these additional cuts are being considered at a time when the industry and those working men and women who depend on it have already been deeply hurt by the critical cuts in the timber program. In my home State of Idaho, our rural communities continue to suffer devastating reductions in the 25 percent funds from timber sales. Schools are going without needed renovation, and county governments are going without needed support and jeopardizing their basic services because of these steep reductions. This amendment is also counterintuitive from an environmental perspective. Active forest management, including thinning and other timber harvest, has widely acknowledged benefits. In fact, most timber sales are currently designed to attain other stewardship objectives, in addition to the sales themselves. Timber sales are the most economic and efficient and effective methods available for our managers to treat and control many insect epidemics. Madam President, each year the National Forest System grows by 23 billion board feet; 6 billion board feet die naturally. Only 3 billion board feet are being harvested. Tree growth in our National Forest System exceeds harvest by 600 percent. I stand firmly with those who have cast their opposition today against this amendment and encourage my colleagues to reject it.