Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, due to the wedding of my oldest daughter, Michelle Crapo, I will be unable to participate in the debate and vote on the Conference Report for H.R. 2488, the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. Had I been present, I would have cast my vote in favor of the measure. The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 is good news for America and will give individual income taxpayers the long-overdue tax relief they deserve. I am most pleased by the one percent across-the-board income tax cut for all individual tax rates and the marriage penalty relief provisions contained in the report. These provisions alone will go a long way towards reducing the tax burdens of the average Idaho family. I am also encouraged to see that the Conference Report eliminates the estate tax, provides alternative minimum tax relief, increases the annual contribution limits for individual retirement accounts and education savings accounts, and reduces individual capital gains tax rates. The Conference Report for the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 is good for income taxpayers, the economy, and the nation. I urge my colleagues to support the report. section 1317

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, I will commit most of my time to comments on the debate with regard to returning to the full import of Rule XVI. However, before I do that, I want to comment on the debate that has just taken place regarding tax relief. I think it is critical that we in America today understand that we have moved into a time of budget surplus, just what those surpluses mean, and what the opportunities are for the American people. Prior to the last 3 or 4 years, we saw, I think, that most Americans became accustomed to the fact we were running very large deficits, and that the Federal Government was not able to conduct its fiscal policy in a manner that was balanced. One of the commitments I made when I ran for the House of Representatives 6 years ago was to work to try to balance the Federal budget. Fortunately, for me, and I think for all Americans, we were able to successfully achieve that objective. The budget today is balanced. In fact, the projections we just heard talked about show that no matter how you look at the budget--whether you count the Social Security dollars, which I don't think should be counted, or whether you don't--we are moving into a balanced posture for the Federal Government. The debate today is over what we do in a surplus posture. It is a debate that Americans have not been able to have for decades because our Government has not run surpluses. Now that we are engaged in this debate, it is critical for Americans to focus and to identify what our fiscal policy should be as we move into an era of projected surpluses. In that context, I think it is critical that a few important priorities be recognized and acknowledged by the country. First and foremost, I am glad we have agreement on the principle, even though we don't have agreement on the details yet, that we have to protect the Social Security trust fund surplus dollars, and make certain that what Americans pay into the Social Security system is not then taken by Congress and the President and spent on other spending by counting those surpluses against the unified budget. We have a lock--in a way, a lockbox--which is now before the Senate that we have voted on six or seven times this year. We have to make sure those parts of the surplus remain dedicated to the Social Security trust fund. With the remainder of what I call the true budget, the onbudget surplus, we have to decide as a country on what we are going to focus. Over the next 10 years, we will have a surplus somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. You have heard different numbers discussed today. I think it is important that we not continue the path of growing the Federal Government, expanding the spending posture of the Federal Government, and spending those surplus dollars. If we do so, we will find a time in the near future when we will not be able to maintain surpluses in our budget; we will return to deficits, and we will see the national debt continue to rise. As a result of that, I think it is critical we focus on two high priorities. One is to reduce the national debt. Although we have balanced the Federal budget, we haven't reduced the national debt to zero. That should be one of our highest priorities. Two is to make sure that we return to the American people a tax cut. The American people recognize that this is an opportunity. It is an opportunity that we may not have too many times as we work through these difficult budget times to achieve tax relief. But to use, as the Senator from New Mexico indicated, just one quarter of this total surplus picture for tax relief I think is an appropriate commitment. That leaves us the opportunity to provide resources to parts of our Federal obligation that need strengthening. It gives us and the American people the opportunity to strengthen and to stabilize the Social Security trust fund. It is a sound policy. I think America should begin to focus on this debate as Congress works its way into a very important new era: How do we deal with budget surpluses?

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, July 26, 1999 at 3:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the question that we will vote on at 5:30; namely, will we restore the meaning of rule XVI? Over the last 2 or 3 months, there has been a lot of debate and discussion among us in the Senate on this issue. One part of that debate has been that it was the Republicans who changed the rule by voting to override it a couple of years ago. The Democrats at that time voted not to override it. Today, you have the anomaly on the floor where the Republicans are saying let's restore that rule because it was a mistake to override it, and the minority is saying we don't want to restore that rule because it is something that we are able to use as a tool in the current climate. I wasn't here 2 years ago. I am in the seventh month of my first year in the Senate. I wasn't a part of that debate. But I can go back to 7 years ago now when I ran for Congress. I ran for the House of Representatives. One of the things I said then was that I thought a problem in our system in Washington was the fact that amendments were being put forward by Members of the House and the Senate--Republican and Democrat--that were not related to that legislation. I come from Idaho. In the Idaho Legislature, that is not allowed. You can't offer an amendment to a bill that doesn't relate to the bill on which you are working. I think that is probably the way it is in most State legislatures. It is the way the Senate rules require that we operate. I think one of the other Senators who was debating it earlier in the day indicated that these are not new rules we are fighting over now in this rather partisan era of politics. The genesis of this approach was way back in, I think, 1868 in one of the earlier predecessors to this rule XVI, when it was recognized by the Members of the Senate that proper legislative protocol was that the bill on the floor should be amended by amendments that were related only to that bill. Why would we have a big debate over that concept? When I was running for office 6 years ago, I thought there was a pretty strong national understanding that one of the problems we were facing in the Federal Government was the fact that legislation was proliferating, spending was proliferating, and there seemed to be no way to bring it under control. Part of the problem was all of the nongermane or unrelated legislation that was being tacked on as riders to legislation that was moving through. Legislation that wouldn't necessarily have the ability to move on its own was being attached to a vehicle that was moving through, and then that vehicle would carry it through to success and enactment into law. I believe that is wrong legislating. That is the wrong policy under which we should legislate. I think it results in bad policy decisions being worked into law because they are attached to something else that has the ability to carry them over the finish line when they themselves don't have the merit to be enacted. I believe that is why in 1868 the Senate proposed the predecessor to this rule that would start the Senate down the road of having a protocol that you could not put amendments on legislation that was not relevant to that legislation. What does rule XVI say? What does the rule we are fighting over say? Sometimes people say to me these procedural issues are arcane and you shouldn't spend so much time worrying about them. But, frankly, I think it is critical. There is an issue that is important to this institution, and it is important to America. It has a very big impact on the kinds of policy decisions that this Nation will make. What does the rule we are fighting over say? It says: On a point of order made by any Senator, no amendment offered by any other Senator which proposes general legislation shall be received to any general appropriations bill, nor shall any amendment not germane or relevant to the subject matter contained in the bill be received, nor shall any amendment to any item or clause of such bill be received which does not directly relate thereto. That is a sensible statement of what the policy should be. This rule says as to appropriations bills--I think that we should have it be that way with regard to all bills--an amendment that doesn't relate to that bill is not in order. That is the issue we are debating today. I was on the floor earlier when several of my colleagues from the other side gave very strong and impassioned arguments as to why they are going to vote against this legislation. Actually, as Senator Gramm from Texas indicated, after listening to those same arguments, I found very little that I disagreed with in their debate about what they believe should be the protocol of the Senate and what they believe should be our attitude toward this great institution of government. The argument that seems to be made is that because we are not able to get all of our agenda put forward on the bills that we want to see put forward, we need the opportunity to bring nongermane amendments to appropriations bills. It was said that the opportunity to bring their issues forward was not being allowed to them. I agree that they should have that opportunity, although I find it a little difficult to see that they are not having it. I remember 2 or 3 weeks ago when this issue came to a point when we were debating the agriculture appropriations bill. An amendment related to health care was brought and debated on the floor of this Senate with regard to the agriculture appropriations bill. At the time, what happened? We had a lot of debate about whether we should be debating health care on an agriculture bill. Ultimately we reached a resolution by which we took the agriculture appropriations bill off the floor, came back a week or so later, and brought the health care legislation to the floor, had a full week of debate on the health care issue, and finally a vote on that health care issue. To me, the question of whether the legislation is moving forward or the issues the minority wants to see brought forward can be brought forward is one that has to be focused on closely. In the Senate--and the good Senator from West Virginia very well and very carefully explained the difference between the House and the Senate--in the Senate, as compared to the House, the minority rights do give the minority many powerful opportunities to bring forth their legislation and their ideas, not the least of which are the filibuster, the hold, and any number of other procedural opportunities they may have. I am convinced the minority's rights to bring forward their issues for argument are well protected. I would say to the Senators who are concerned about that, I agree with them, they should be protected. The way a legislature should operate is that both sides should be able to bring forward their issues and the clash of ideas should take place on the floor of the Senate. The Senate should then vote based on principle, on what the policy of the country should be on the issue being debated. What should not happen is that, as an important bill that is moving forward is being debated, something that cannot survive the clash of ideas gets attached to it as a rider and then slides through into law without that opportunity for the clear and concise focus that would be followed if rule XVI were followed. Although we are debating a procedural issue today, the issue could not be more important to the governance of this Senate and to the governance of this country. I do not remember who it was, but one of the great political leaders of the country once said: If you give me control over the procedure, I can control the outcome. Procedures are critical to the proper outcome in a legislative body. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleagues; our procedures must be fair; they must be balanced. In that context, I would willingly support any efforts to make the system here more fair and more balanced. I look at this not as a Republican or a Democrat. As I said, I was not here 2 years ago when the fight took place to change the rule from what it was before. I believe Republicans and Democrats break the spirit of this rule regularly in the Senate. To me, we have to look at what is the right principle by which this great institution should be governed. When we identify the principle by which we should be governed, without partisan considerations, we should enact that principle into our rules. That is what I believe was done in 1868. I think that is what the Senate has done historically with what is now rule XVI and with the principle that we should not allow nongermane riders to be attached to legislation being considered on the floor of the Senate. I would like to conclude my remarks by going back to a theme that has been brought up by the Senator from West Virginia, and that is his respect for this great institution. It is one of the greatest honors that ever could be bestowed on anyone to have the privilege to serve in this Chamber, the Senate. I feel about my opportunity that deeply. I want to do nothing other than to make this institution the great institution our Founding Fathers intended for it to be. It will be that kind of institution if we look beyond partisanship, beyond politics, and beyond personal attacks, and identify the principles by which we should govern ourselves, put those principles into place, and then operate within their limits. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues a significant achievement in the field of environmental science. Lockheed Martin Corporation annually recognizes 50 of its 170,000 employees with NOVA awards for technical excellence. Mr. Robert W. Smith of Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company, the operating contractor of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, INEEL, was cited for his valuable work in utilizing microbial communities in the subsurface to contribute to the remediation of contaminants resulting from nuclear energy and weapons research. Mr. Smith heads teams comprised of scientists from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Princeton University, and Portland State University. They represent the best in field scale research of biogeochemistry processes. The natural processes that Mr. Smith and his teams uncover will be incorporated into future efforts to clean up the legacy of waste from the nuclear energy complex and contamination problems on other agency lands. Mr. Smith expects that instead of massive engineering solutions to remove the waste, natural processes that cause less environmental disturbance will be more commonly utilized. I congratulate Mr. Smith on receiving this award. The achievement also recognizes that his success could not have been made without the dedication of his team members. There are an array of environmental stewardship and natural resource problems ranging from mining reclamation to global climate impacts that could be solved through collaborative research. Objective science and reasonable solutions would then be available for policy makers, agency executives, and advocate groups involved in critical natural resource issues. More can be accomplished when parties work together to solve problems than through conflict. I urge each of my colleagues to keep these concepts in mind as we debate and consider investing in basic science, research, and the environment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Yes, I would, very much. Mr. President, this is something that I haven't said to the majority leader, but 6 years ago I ran for the House of Representatives. In that campaign, I said that one of the things I thought ought to be fixed in Congress was that we should stop Congress from considering legislation with amendments that have nothing to do with the underlying bill. I used to say they should not be allowed to put nongermane amendments on legislation. I was told that maybe that is too big a word, ``nongermane.'' I think the American people understand that concept. In fact, the American people understand that one of the problems we face in Congress--both the House and the Senate--is that when a piece of legislation is considered, we don't keep it germane: we don't keep the focus of the debate on that legislation. Americans understand that is why we run into budget problems. They understand that is why we have so many difficult problems in Congress. They can't understand why we can't come to agreement. The fact is that it is a very sensible commonsense principle that used to be in the rules of the Senate--that when a piece of legislation was brought before the Senate, an amendment cannot be put on that legislation unless the amendment is germane or relevant to that legislation itself. It is something that all Americans have an easy time understanding. Yet for some reason we have a difficult time here in the Senate honoring that basic principle. This isn't an issue of who is right on this issue or who is right on that issue or who is going to get political advantage out of this rule. It is a rule that cuts the same way all the time, and whichever party or whichever interest would like to abuse it is the one that is going to have to face its consequences. But it is one which is a fair principle that will allow us to properly move forward. I think it is very critical to recognize that today we are debating this issue because we are trying to finish the appropriations process, and not run into a problem a few months from now when we are not able to get the Government's budgeting process finished, to keep our commitment to the American people to keep a balanced budget, and maybe eke out an opportunity for some tax relief and yet fulfill our responsibilities to the important programs in the Federal Government. That is the debate today. Part of that debate we are on today is the agriculture appropriations bill. Yet we have stopped the functions of the Senate now for several days, and the threat apparently is permanently, unless we shift the debate to another very important topic--the health care issue. No one disagrees that we should debate health care issues. We even offered that we can debate those issues. The offer simply has been let's do it in an orderly and a principled way. Let's not allow amendments that are unrelated to the subject of the underlying legislation to be submitted. I think it is very interesting that the argument was made just a minute ago that, well, you Republicans changed this rule a few years ago. I didn't. I wasn't here a few years ago when that vote was taken. I was campaigning 6 years ago, so that shouldn't be the way this Senate should operate, and it shouldn't be the way the House of Representatives operates. I have taken that position every session that I have been in this Congress. I take that position here today. We have to take the strong position on principles. I think the American people will recognize that, and they know a lot of politics is being played as we debate here today. But if we will make our decisions on principles by which the American people should be governed, and by which this House of our Congress should be governed, and then let those principles work their way out as the various interests try to play politics on the issues, then at least we will know that the process is fair. That is what this Senate ought to do and what it ought to return to. I think it is time for us to resolve this impasse by returning to the kind of governing principles that we should follow as a Senate. I thank the majority leader for yielding and giving me this opportunity.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, my amendment is co-sponsored by the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Lott. On February 23, 1999, the Senate voted 87 to 11 in favor of this same amendment during consideration of S. 4. My amendment will repeal the current statute that reduces retirement pay for regular officers of a uniformed service who chose to work for the federal government. The uniformed services include the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Service and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency. If a retired officer from the uniform services comes to work for the Senate, his or her retirement pay is reduced by about 50 percent, after the first $8,000, to offset for payments from the Senate. The retired officer can request a waiver but the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government handle the waiver process differently on a case by case basis. The current dual compensation limitation is also discriminatory in that regular officers are covered but reservists or enlisted personnel are not covered by the limitation. The Congressional Budget Office has recently looked at the current dual compensation limitation and it is estimated that around 6,000 military retirees lose an average of $800 per month because of this prohibition. I have been unable to find one good reason to explain why we should want our law to discourage retired members of the uniformed services from seeking full time employment with the Federal Government. Our laws should not reduce a benefit military retirees have earned because they chose to work for the federal government. My amendment would fix this inequity, it would give retired officers equal pay for equal work from the federal government and it would give the federal government access to a workforce that currently avoids employment with the Federal Government. I am pleased the managers of the bill have agreed to accept my amendment and I thank them for their support for this important amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the ``Pharmacist's Patient Protection Act of 1999.'' The purpose of the legislation is to stop the implementation of final regulations that have been issued by the Food and Drug Administration that will require community pharmacists to provide agency sanctioned information when certain prescription drugs are dispensed to a patient. Such regulations, commonly called ``MedGuides'', were issued in final form on December 1, 1998. Now why would Congress want to prohibit a regulation which would give patients written information about their medications? The answer is very simple. During the 104th Congress, the House and Senate debated this very same issue, and ultimately a compromise was reached whereby FDA agreed not to promulgate its MedGuide regulations for a period of time so that the private sector would have the opportunity to work with the Administration to develop a voluntary action plan to continue to increase the quality and quantity of written information already being provided to consumers with prescription medication. Under the agreement which was enacted into law as part of the FY 97 Agriculture Appropriations, FDA is prohibited from implementing any part of the MedGuide regulations until the year 2001. When we get to the year 2001, FDA would be permitted to move forward with the MedGuide initiative only if voluntary efforts failed to get written information to 75 percent of all patients receiving a new prescription. Regrettably, FDA has chosen not to live up to its part of the agreement. The agency's final rule to require Medication Guides for selected prescription drugs, which will take effect on June 1, 1999, is in clear violation of federal law. It appears that FDA is deliberately ignoring the law. It would be my hope that the Administration would hold in abeyance the implementation of the MedGuide regulations, and honor the remainder of the moratorium relating to this rule making. However, I am not confident that this will occur, and therefore this bill is necessary so that we can put back into place the terms of the agreement that were made with the Administration during the 104th Congress. Finally, I should point out that holding off the implementation of the MedGuide rule will not deny patients access to prescription drug information, nor will it preclude FDA from communicating with pharmaceutical companies and community pharmacists about the importance of providing information to patients about their prescription drugs. In other words, nothing in this bill should be construed as restricting the ability of the FDA to use its existing authority regarding the provision of written patient information on a product-by-product basis with certain prescription medications. Let the competitive retail pharmacy marketplace continue to make great strides in providing consumers with meaningful, accurate and easily understood written information about prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor the ``Pharmacist's Patient Protection Act of 1999.''

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the ``Pharmacist's Patient Protection Act of 1999.'' The purpose of the legislation is to stop the implementation of final regulations that have been issued by the Food and Drug Administration that will require community pharmacists to provide agency sanctioned information when certain prescription drugs are dispensed to a patient. Such regulations, commonly called ``MedGuides'', were issued in final form on December 1, 1998. Now why would Congress want to prohibit a regulation which would give patients written information about their medications? The answer is very simple. During the 104th Congress, the House and Senate debated this very same issue, and ultimately a compromise was reached whereby FDA agreed not to promulgate its MedGuide regulations for a period of time so that the private sector would have the opportunity to work with the Administration to develop a voluntary action plan to continue to increase the quality and quantity of written information already being provided to consumers with prescription medication. Under the agreement which was enacted into law as part of the FY 97 Agriculture Appropriations, FDA is prohibited from implementing any part of the MedGuide regulations until the year 2001. When we get to the year 2001, FDA would be permitted to move forward with the MedGuide initiative only if voluntary efforts failed to get written information to 75 percent of all patients receiving a new prescription. Regrettably, FDA has chosen not to live up to its part of the agreement. The agency's final rule to require Medication Guides for selected prescription drugs, which will take effect on June 1, 1999, is in clear violation of federal law. It appears that FDA is deliberately ignoring the law. It would be my hope that the Administration would hold in abeyance the implementation of the MedGuide regulations, and honor the remainder of the moratorium relating to this rule making. However, I am not confident that this will occur, and therefore this bill is necessary so that we can put back into place the terms of the agreement that were made with the Administration during the 104th Congress. Finally, I should point out that holding off the implementation of the MedGuide rule will not deny patients access to prescription drug information, nor will it preclude FDA from communicating with pharmaceutical companies and community pharmacists about the importance of providing information to patients about their prescription drugs. In other words, nothing in this bill should be construed as restricting the ability of the FDA to use its existing authority regarding the provision of written patient information on a product-by-product basis with certain prescription medications. Let the competitive retail pharmacy marketplace continue to make great strides in providing consumers with meaningful, accurate and easily understood written information about prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor the ``Pharmacist's Patient Protection Act of 1999.''

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Environmental Stewardship and Natural Resources Act which I am introducing today with Senator Craig as cosponsor. The nuclear defense capability of the United States has protected our form of government and ensured our freedoms since its inception during World War II. In order to sustain and develop our nuclear deterrence, a vast industrial complex was established. This complex of facilities was built under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission and its successor agency, the Department of Energy. Uranium mines, factories, laboratories, and reactors were located throughout the country to provide nuclear and conventional components for weapons. These facilities were mostly located on large tracts of land, which also included surrounding buffer areas for security. With the end of the cold war, and the mutual reduction of the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals, many of our nuclear facilities are closing, changing or reducing their missions. Land management at these facilities, throughout their production lives was limited to accomplishing their missions and providing isolation and security. Protection of the ecosystems and natural resources, on which our nuclear arsenal was built, did not rate high priority in the agency's planning. Any environmental benefits or natural resources protection on these facilities was truly incidental to their isolation. In addition to lack of natural resource planning, there exists a contamination legacy which has resulted in the largest and most expensive cleanup program in the federal government. Regardless of the effectiveness and efficiency of the cleanup program, some levels of contaminants will remain, and will need to be monitored and managed. Long term stewardship is the process of managing and protecting the natural resources that are unaffected by contamination, and also the continual monitoring and stabilization of contaminants that remain in place following mediation. Even after a facility is cleaned up and closed, no matter how effective the remediation effort, the federal government is still liable for any subsequent action that may be necessary to insure that no harm will come to humans or the environment. The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, INEEL, has a long history with the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy. Originally known as the National Reactor Testing Station, this site constructed, tested, and operated 52 reactors for various defense and civilian purposes since the early 1950's. All but a handful of these reactors have been decontaminated and dismantled. In addition to this nuclear mission, the INEEL has developed expertise and experience in the modeling the movement of contaminants in the environment; and research and development of technologies necessary for the detection, monitoring, stabilization, and mediation of contamination. I propose, with this bill, to establsh the INEEL as the Department of Energy Center of Excellence for the development of technologies, techniques, and methodologies for the implementation of an effective Long Term Stewardship program throughout the nuclear weapons production complex. I also propose the establishment of a Natural Resource Institute at the INEEL. This institute will bring together scientists, scholars, and others in the field of natural resources management, to study complex issues that affect natural resources policy. The institute will also work on specific natural resource and environmental issues and problems, by utilizing the resources of the INEEL, northwest universities, states, and various federal agencies. The INEEL is a national laboratory, not is just a laboratory for the Department of Energy. The expertise, experience, and resources of this site must be made available to all. The natural Resource Institute will be the conduit for bringing expertise to the INEEL and for making information, data, and good science available for the solution of natural resource issues throughout the inland northwest.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Environmental Stewardship and Natural Resources Act which I am introducing today with Senator Craig as cosponsor. The nuclear defense capability of the United States has protected our form of government and ensured our freedoms since its inception during World War II. In order to sustain and develop our nuclear deterrence, a vast industrial complex was established. This complex of facilities was built under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission and its successor agency, the Department of Energy. Uranium mines, factories, laboratories, and reactors were located throughout the country to provide nuclear and conventional components for weapons. These facilities were mostly located on large tracts of land, which also included surrounding buffer areas for security. With the end of the cold war, and the mutual reduction of the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals, many of our nuclear facilities are closing, changing or reducing their missions. Land management at these facilities, throughout their production lives was limited to accomplishing their missions and providing isolation and security. Protection of the ecosystems and natural resources, on which our nuclear arsenal was built, did not rate high priority in the agency's planning. Any environmental benefits or natural resources protection on these facilities was truly incidental to their isolation. In addition to lack of natural resource planning, there exists a contamination legacy which has resulted in the largest and most expensive cleanup program in the federal government. Regardless of the effectiveness and efficiency of the cleanup program, some levels of contaminants will remain, and will need to be monitored and managed. Long term stewardship is the process of managing and protecting the natural resources that are unaffected by contamination, and also the continual monitoring and stabilization of contaminants that remain in place following mediation. Even after a facility is cleaned up and closed, no matter how effective the remediation effort, the federal government is still liable for any subsequent action that may be necessary to insure that no harm will come to humans or the environment. The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, INEEL, has a long history with the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy. Originally known as the National Reactor Testing Station, this site constructed, tested, and operated 52 reactors for various defense and civilian purposes since the early 1950's. All but a handful of these reactors have been decontaminated and dismantled. In addition to this nuclear mission, the INEEL has developed expertise and experience in the modeling the movement of contaminants in the environment; and research and development of technologies necessary for the detection, monitoring, stabilization, and mediation of contamination. I propose, with this bill, to establsh the INEEL as the Department of Energy Center of Excellence for the development of technologies, techniques, and methodologies for the implementation of an effective Long Term Stewardship program throughout the nuclear weapons production complex. I also propose the establishment of a Natural Resource Institute at the INEEL. This institute will bring together scientists, scholars, and others in the field of natural resources management, to study complex issues that affect natural resources policy. The institute will also work on specific natural resource and environmental issues and problems, by utilizing the resources of the INEEL, northwest universities, states, and various federal agencies. The INEEL is a national laboratory, not is just a laboratory for the Department of Energy. The expertise, experience, and resources of this site must be made available to all. The natural Resource Institute will be the conduit for bringing expertise to the INEEL and for making information, data, and good science available for the solution of natural resource issues throughout the inland northwest.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act, which is introduced today by Senators Rockefeller, Hatch, Bryan, and myself. There are many reasons for my support of the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act offered today, in the Senate. A number of those reasons may not be immediately evident, given that the merits of alternative fuels are most often spoken in terms of environmental protection. While there are significant environmental benefits that can be gained from this bill, there are also benefits to be obtained in national security, promotion of the domestic oil industry, the encouragement of business development and innovation, and increased options for the consumer. Over half of the oil consumed in the United States is produced overseas. Internal combustion vehicles, cars, and trucks, are the primary market for this cheap and readily available source of energy. We, as a nation, have become complacent in our assumption that this stream of easily obtainable fuel will flow forever. It is time for this assumption to be challenged. Most of us have viewed this as simply an economic issue: buy what is cheapest and most available. However, this source of fuel is vulnerable to interruption by foreign governments through changing attitudes toward the U.S., foreign policy or military conflict. The United States should take positive and sure steps toward developing domestically available alternative sources of fuel in order that our economy and accustomed way of life cannot be threatened by the whims and troubles of those outside of our borders. The flood of foreign oil into the U.S. has left the domestic oil industry fighting for its life. Our support for alternative fueled vehicles should not be interpreted as a challenge or competition to the domestic oil industry. In direct contrast, it recognizes the importance of that industry of our national security. Petroleum products and fuels, including gasoline, will be needed far into the future for the transportation requirements of individuals, mass transportation, and conveyance of goods. The development of alternative fuels that are plentiful in this country, in conjunction with support for our domestic oil industry, will provide us a level of economic national security that we have not experienced for most of this century. By our efforts to revive the U.S. oil industry and the development of alternative fuels and vehicles, we will not be held hostage by foreign governments in gas lines again. The number of innovative alternative fuel technologies is encouraging. This bill supports the further development of vehicles that are powered by electricity, fuel cells, methanol, and various forms of natural gas. Tax incentives are already in place for other technologies such as ethanol. Support for all promising alternative fuels is warranted in order to give consumers options for choosing those vehicles that will best serve their needs; whether a company requires a fleet of natural gas powered buses to transport their employees of work sites, or an individual's preference for an electric vehicle for in-town use to commute to work or run errands. The enactment of tax incentives for emerging technologies is the logical way to encourage the development of cost effective alternative fueled vehicles, without the federal government mandating a preference. Leveling the tax incentive playing field within the alternative fuel energy sector will encourage partnerships between traditional providers of transportation and fuel products, and new companies with promising innovations. Instead of fighting change, traditional industry providers will participate in it and benefit from it. Increased market demand for alternative fuel vehicle technologies will also provide an opportunity and an incentive for the federal government to place greater emphasis on research and development in this industry sector. The results of which can then be leveraged into the private market. While the environmental benefits of cleaner burning fuels are often the most talked about and often the most evident; we should not discount the benefits that can be gained by developing our nation's energy independence.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act, which is introduced today by Senators Rockefeller, Hatch, Bryan, and myself. There are many reasons for my support of the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act offered today, in the Senate. A number of those reasons may not be immediately evident, given that the merits of alternative fuels are most often spoken in terms of environmental protection. While there are significant environmental benefits that can be gained from this bill, there are also benefits to be obtained in national security, promotion of the domestic oil industry, the encouragement of business development and innovation, and increased options for the consumer. Over half of the oil consumed in the United States is produced overseas. Internal combustion vehicles, cars, and trucks, are the primary market for this cheap and readily available source of energy. We, as a nation, have become complacent in our assumption that this stream of easily obtainable fuel will flow forever. It is time for this assumption to be challenged. Most of us have viewed this as simply an economic issue: buy what is cheapest and most available. However, this source of fuel is vulnerable to interruption by foreign governments through changing attitudes toward the U.S., foreign policy or military conflict. The United States should take positive and sure steps toward developing domestically available alternative sources of fuel in order that our economy and accustomed way of life cannot be threatened by the whims and troubles of those outside of our borders. The flood of foreign oil into the U.S. has left the domestic oil industry fighting for its life. Our support for alternative fueled vehicles should not be interpreted as a challenge or competition to the domestic oil industry. In direct contrast, it recognizes the importance of that industry of our national security. Petroleum products and fuels, including gasoline, will be needed far into the future for the transportation requirements of individuals, mass transportation, and conveyance of goods. The development of alternative fuels that are plentiful in this country, in conjunction with support for our domestic oil industry, will provide us a level of economic national security that we have not experienced for most of this century. By our efforts to revive the U.S. oil industry and the development of alternative fuels and vehicles, we will not be held hostage by foreign governments in gas lines again. The number of innovative alternative fuel technologies is encouraging. This bill supports the further development of vehicles that are powered by electricity, fuel cells, methanol, and various forms of natural gas. Tax incentives are already in place for other technologies such as ethanol. Support for all promising alternative fuels is warranted in order to give consumers options for choosing those vehicles that will best serve their needs; whether a company requires a fleet of natural gas powered buses to transport their employees of work sites, or an individual's preference for an electric vehicle for in-town use to commute to work or run errands. The enactment of tax incentives for emerging technologies is the logical way to encourage the development of cost effective alternative fueled vehicles, without the federal government mandating a preference. Leveling the tax incentive playing field within the alternative fuel energy sector will encourage partnerships between traditional providers of transportation and fuel products, and new companies with promising innovations. Instead of fighting change, traditional industry providers will participate in it and benefit from it. Increased market demand for alternative fuel vehicle technologies will also provide an opportunity and an incentive for the federal government to place greater emphasis on research and development in this industry sector. The results of which can then be leveraged into the private market. While the environmental benefits of cleaner burning fuels are often the most talked about and often the most evident; we should not discount the benefits that can be gained by developing our nation's energy independence.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I want to personally thank you for arranging for us to take this time out of our busy schedules to recognize teachers during Teacher Appreciation Week. Providing the brightest future for our nation's children is one of the most important things we will do here on the floor of the Senate. After parents and families, America's teachers play the leading role in helping our children reach their potential. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to join in tribute to our nation's outstanding educators and recognize a few of the top teachers in my home state of Idaho. We all know the impact of teachers. Five days a week, for 9 months of every year, nearly 3 million teachers in this country help mold our children's future. I believe in the quality education our teachers, administrators, and others provide in Idaho. That is why my children continue to reside in the great State of Idaho. My wife Susan and I made the decision nearly 7 years ago when I was first elected to Congress that she and our children would remain in Idaho. We wanted our children to continue to receive the quality education they now experience in Idaho's public school system. That quality education takes many faces. I want to show you one of them this morning. Judy Bieze lives in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and teaches first grade at Hayden Meadows Elementary in nearby Hayden Lake. Mrs. Bieze was honored this year by the State of Idaho as Teacher of the Year. But she is more than that; she is also a local softball coach and a Sunday school teacher, so I guess that makes her a teacher 7 days a week. During each school year Mrs. Bieze gives individual attention to her students by profiling each one as the ``Special and Unique'' person of the week. She also encourages parents to volunteer in the classroom and to take an active role in their child's learning. It is the ability to give of herself that makes Mrs. Bieze special. Her superintendent says she ``exemplifies the initiative and dedication we seek in our educators.'' Mrs. Bieze characteristically deflects that praise and credits her students. She says she--in her words--is ``truly blessed'' as ``the recipient of their unrestrained love, curiosity and enthusiasm for six hours each day.'' If only we could be holding more speeches on the floor of this Senate that deal with issues like love, curiosity and enthusiasm. Mrs. Bieze, we salute you. I would be remiss in not mentioning some of Idaho's other outstanding teachers. Just last week, Idaho's PTA honored Jeff Durner, a fifth- grade teacher at Jefferson Elementary in Boise. The PTA credits Mr. Durner for helping children ``become the best they can be.'' The Idaho Education Association credits a sixth-grade teacher from my hometown of Idaho Falls as being worthy of special recognition. Zoe Ann Jorgenson has helped develop a special program in her district that groups children based on their needs, not on their age. She says many parents have chosen to keep their children in public schools, rather than move them to private classrooms, based on this innovative and unique program. Mrs. Jorgenson believes the system should be made to fit the children, not that children be forced to fit the system. She says that parents are looking for choices within the structure of the public school system, and she wants to offer them those choices. Finally, Idaho Parents Unlimited says a special education teacher formerly from Blackfoot, and now from Meridian, ID deserves credit for trail-blazing programs for students that are sometimes forgotten in our school systems. Barbara Jones earned the title of Special Education Consulting Teacher. One parent in Blackfoot described her as ``a true gift to my son as well as myself.'' Ms. Jones is now helping both fellow teachers and students learn how special needs can offer special rewards. We all have a stake in this process, because our children's success in education depends on the support they receive at home, and the future of our nation depends on the leaders we are raising today. Some define leadership as what we do with our opportunities. I am proud to praise these fine Idaho educators who have moved the bar higher--for our children.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Following morning business, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. to accommodate the weekly party caucus luncheons. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, it will begin consideration of the budget reform legislation, with votes possible throughout the day on this bill or any other legislative or executive items cleared for action. This week we also expect to vote on the adoption of the education flexibility conference report. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, under the order of last night, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Extension Of Morning Business I now ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 12:30 p.m. under the previous conditions.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. This morning the Senate will immediately begin the final 5 hours of debate on the budget resolution conference report. Therefore, Senators can expect a rollcall vote on adoption of the conference report at approximately 2 p.m. or earlier if time is yielded back. Under a previous order, the Senate may also expect a final vote on the House version of S. 767, the uniformed services tax filing fairness bill. That vote is expected to occur immediately following the vote on the budget conference report. I thank my colleagues for their attention, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, Senator Abraham of Michigan, in offering this amendment. This amendment is being offered in reaction to a provision in the President's FY 2000 budget that would impose a new tax on the investment income of nonprofit trade and professional associations. These trade and professional associations are currently exempt from taxes under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. The administration's proposal would tax the investment income-- interest, dividends, capital gains, rents, and royalties--of 501(c)(6) associations. Associations currently rely on this investment income to carry out exempt-status related activities such as education, training, standard-setting, research, and community outreach. Under the President's proposal, the first $10,000 an association earns from investments would not be taxed. However, all income earned over $10,000 would be subject to the unrelated business income tax under the Internal Revenue Code. It is estimated that this new tax, which can be as high as 35 percent, will increase the tax burden on the nation's nonprofit trade and professional associations by $1.4 billion over the next 5 years. Contrary to assertions made by the administration, this proposal will affect thousands of small and mid-sized trade associations and professional societies. According to the American Society of Association Executives' Operating Ratio Report, most associations with annual operating budgets as low as $200,000 would be subject to a new tax under this proposal. As many as 70,000 associations nationwide could be affected by this new tax, including the American Youth Soccer Organization, American Nurses Association, the National Education Association, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and many others. Important trade associations in my home state that could be affected by the new tax include the Idaho Association of School Administrators, Idaho Credit Union League, Idaho Mining Association, the Idaho Cattle Association and others. This amendment is supported by the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), the trade organization that represents our Nation's trade and professional associations. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this new tax and support the amendment. amendment no. 228 At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to present this important amendment. As we said yesterday when we discussed this amendment preliminarily, we have had an opportunity for the last 4 or 5 years to debate the concept of a lockbox in one context or another. Originally, in the House of Representatives when we presented this idea, it was to address deficits. We have had deficits for as long as most of us can remember. Yet the budget process did not seem to provide a mechanism by which we could lock aside spending that Congress decided to reduce in order to make sure that it was used to reduce the debt, or to reduce the deficit. Now we are in a surplus environment. We have just done some major work on this budget that was spearheaded by Senator Abraham and Senator Domenici to create a lockbox for the Social Security surpluses, and to assure those surpluses are not spent by Congress. They are locked aside to be utilized to either pay down the public debt, or to be used to reform Social Security, both of which will strengthen and save a lot of the Social Security trust fund. I commend our chairman for that tremendous effort and will support that effort. This amendment which Senator Grams from Minnesota and I have worked on would use the lockbox concept for another part of the surplus, that part of the surplus that deals with the potential for an increased surplus beyond that which we now have projected. In July, we expect that new projections will show an increased surplus outside of the Social Security surplus that will be generated by taxpayer dollars. This part of the surplus will be a surplus that was not contemplated by Congress as we put together this budget. We are putting together this budget based on our current projections. And this budget will take care of the Social Security surplus. It will protect Medicare and education and other needed spending and will find room for tax relief. But, if in July the new projections show an enhanced surplus, this amendment would say that any new surplus must be locked away in a lockbox so that it can be used only for tax relief or retirement of the national debt. It is critical that we take the tough steps, but the important steps to assure that as we now move into a surplus environment with our budget that we protect the taxpayer and we protect those of particularly our younger generations who face such monumental debt in our Federal Government. This amendment says any new enhanced surplus that comes from better projections that is in excess of what we are projecting in this budget that we are working on now will not be used for other spending, but will be used to reduce the burden of taxes on Americans, or to reduce the national debt, which has been incurred over the last few decades. I strongly encourage the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this amendment is a very straightforward amendment. It seeks to deal with the excess surplus we expect to be projected this July. We are now working on a budget that will be saving Social Security, for tax relief, and for the necessary investments we must make in our military, education, Medicare, and other needed programs the Federal Government must pay attention to. After this budget is put together and we have made those adjustments, we expect the July reports will say we have an even larger surplus than is now expected. This amendment says, if a larger surplus develops, that surplus should be set aside in a lockbox for either tax relief or debt retirement. It is very straightforward, to say after we have met the needs in negotiating this budget, we then apply any future increases in the surplus to debt retirement or tax relief.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co- sponsor of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. I commend my colleague, Senator Craig, for bringing forward this important measure and am pleased to offer it my support. The National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 will establish guidelines for public and local, State, and federal government involvement in the designation and planning of national monuments. Currently, under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the authority to proclaim a national monument and determine its composition and scope without any prior or subsequent public involvement. Although this authority has rarely been invoked since the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which mandates public comment periods prior to federal land management actions, the recent exercise of this authority by the current Administration has called attention to the need to revise the Antiquities Act. These proposed amendments to the Antiquities Act reflect the contemporary recognition that public involvement in federal land management decisions is both proper and beneficial. This measure, beyond requiring the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to include the public and the different levels of government in the decision to designate and form national monuments, also directs the Secretaries to research and make available information about the land to be designated. Factors such as the mineral values present and identification of existing rights held on federal lands within the area to be designated have an obvious bearing on the decision of whether designation is appropriate and, if it is, how it should be structured. An understanding of these factors should be a part of an inclusive decision-making process and, hence, it is appropriate to require that they be explored and publicly shared prior to the designation of a national monument. The strongest protection, however, that the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 provides for public oversight of national monument designation is the requirement that any recommendation of the President for declaration of land as a national monument shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. By subjecting proposals for monument designations to congressional approval, this Act ensures that when national monuments are established they are truly supported, both nationally and by local communities. This Act provides an important level of protection for public involvement in land use issues and I am pleased to offer it my support.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution submitted earlier today by Senator Lott regarding support of troops engaged in military operations in Yugoslavia be considered agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that all Senators be added as cosponsors of the resolution.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.