Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, Idaho is the nation's leading producer of fresh water trout. This important industry depends on springs that supply the Snake River, which is coming under increasingly strict water quality regulations. The State also finds itself leading the debate on Salmon conservation and is continually looking for sound scientific solutions. The University of Idaho is already establishing itself as a significant resource in the science of identifying and developing preservation strategies for the nation's endangered and threatened fish species. The University of Idaho currently operates the Tunnison Lab, approximately four acres of the Hagerman National Fish Hatchery, pursuant to a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This agreement has allowed the University of Idaho to pursue research that will help conserve the region's endangered and threatened salmonids, and study alternative fish feed that may reduce nutrient loads normally associated with the aquaculture industry nationwide. S. 2505 will transfer the title of the Tunnison Lab from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the University of Idaho. By doing this, the University will be able to take advantage of federal funding secured as part of the University's biotech improvement efforts. The University has proposed to spend $1.75 million on improvements to the Tunnison Lab. As part of the improvements, the University of Idaho will include an on-site learning center that will provide educational training on fish management for federal agents, industry representatives, and others interested in improved management of salmonid species. This bill has the support of the Administration, the Senate, the Governor of Idaho, local government officials, adjacent property owners, Idaho's aquaculture industry, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Knowing that the Hagerman Valley is a rich archaeological area, home to rich fossil sites, extra precautions have been taken to assure protection of any valuable sites discovered in the Environmental Assessment conducted as part of the transfer. S. 2505 is good government in action. Because of the initiative of a state entity (the UI) and a federal entity (USFWS), we've taken federal resources and put them to the best use for the American public. It is going to address some very real research needs. The result is going to be a cleaner environment, a stronger Idaho aquaculture industry, and a more secure future for Idaho's wild salmon.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for S. 538, a bill to convey title to certain facilities in the Minidoka Project to the Burley Irrigation District in Idaho. This bill represents a watershed for irrigators in the western United States by setting a model for future legislation involving facility title transfers. Burley Irrigation District is a waterusers cooperative operating in southern Idaho for the benefit of local irrigators and was authorized in 1904 under the Reclamation Act. Under authority outlined in the Act, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, transferred to the District the care, operation, and maintenance of certain project works. In 1926, the District entered into a contract with the United States to assume the care, operation, and maintenance of the South Side Pumping Division, together with certain telephone lines. In this contract, the District agreed to pay to the United States the balance of all construction indebtedness of landowners, including interest and penalties, operation and maintenance charges, and book value of equipment and supplies transferred to the District. Supplemental contracts between the District and the United States have transferred responsibility for certain transmission lines, transformer stations, and the main South Side Canal from its headworks to the first lift pumping station of the South Side Pumping Division. Since that time, the District has repaid out all construction and other costs allocated to it under the various contracts. The District has been in continuous operation, maintenance, and management of the distribution facilities and pumping plants for 72 years. S. 538 is consistent with the Reclamation Act of 1902 and the need of the United States to divest itself of title to property for which it has liability, but not the operation and maintenance responsibilities. Moreover, it fulfills the spirit of the Reclamation Act and the goal of reducing the size of the federal government by transferring to private hands title to Bureau of Reclamation facilities. I would like to take a moment to address certain questions that had been raised by the Administration regarding the intentions of this bill. These issues have already been clarified with the Secretary of the Interior, but I would like to state them here for the purpose of placing them in the Record. First, the question of what is meant in this legislation by the inclusion of return flows as part of the water rights transfer. As a result of the irrigation of the lands within Burley Irrigation District and Minidoka Irrigation District, there are return flows to the Snake River. Under the Foster Decree, when these districts are using stored water to which they are entitled under their spaceholder contracts for irrigation of their lands, they receive a credit for the return flows to the river which is used on a proportionate basis to reduce their use of stored water. The Decree is administered by the State of Idaho, and the extent of return flows depends on the operation of the districts' distribution systems. These rights clearly belong to the districts and inure the benefit of the districts and the landowners therein. Second, a concern had been raised about this bill potentially changing the crediting system of return flows from the way it is currently carried out and, in particular, adversely affecting the Minidoka Irrigation District. Let me assure you that nothing in the bill is intended to modify the crediting of return flows from the way they are currently credited. Of course, it is extremely difficult to differentiate the source of return flows, but I would expect that the agreement to be negotiated between the Burley Irrigation District, the Minidoka Irrigation District, and the Secretary of the Interior, would address the partitioning of credits in a manner that will preserve the status quo. Finally, the Administration had raised a question about the possible impact on storage rights of provisions in the bill transferring natural flow rights. The Bureau of Reclamation has been informed that nothing under this bill is intended to transfer or impair storage rights held by the Bureau, and nothing is intended to impair the operations of the Minidoka Project by the Secretary of the Interior. To the extent operational issues or concerns arise as a result of the transfer, I would expect the Burley Irrigation District and the Secretary to address such matters in the agreement that will be negotiated under the bill. These questions have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Administration, and all sides have given their assent to this legislation. Madam Speaker, this legislation is the product of months of intensive negotiations involving the District, the Administration, and Congress. It is fair and cost-effective to the American taxpayer, and it is simply wise public policy. The compromises reached allow all those involved to feel a sense of ownership in this legislation. Accordingly, I would like to express my appreciation to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Doolittle, the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, as well as the full committee Chairman Young and Ranking Member Miller, and the Administration for their hard work and cooperation on this important bill. I would also like to express my thanks to my colleague from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth, for her invaluable help in passing this legislation. And, of course, I extend special appreciation to the bill's sponsor in the other body, Senator Craig, and applaud his persistence in this endeavor. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the establishment of International Centers for Environmental Safety (ICES). The United States Department of Energy (DOE) and the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy are currently responsible for overseeing components of the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, materials, and infrastructures. It is within the responsibilities of these two agencies to address the environmental impacts of nuclear activities resulting from the cold war. It is my understanding that these two agencies have recognized their responsibilities and are discussing the formation of ICES to address these important areas of responsibility. The establishment of ICES enjoys strong support among DOE officials and representatives in the field. The primary mission of ICES would be to resolve environmental issues associated with the production and management of nuclear weapons materials, decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and restoration of associated sites. ICES would be particularly helpful in assisting Russia decontaminate and decommission its obsolete nuclear submarine fleet, especially its spent nuclear fuel. The centers will draw upon the wealth of knowledge, expertise and technologies within the existing scientific infrastructures to accomplish these objectives. In March of 1998, Russian Minister Adamov proposed to former Secretary of Energy Pena that ICES be established in the United States and Russia. Minister Adamov proposed that these centers be modeled after the International Nuclear Safety Centers that were established under former Secretary O'Leary and former Minister Mikhailov in January, 1996. Minister Adamov suggested that the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and the Russian Research and Development Institute of Power and Engineering serve as the host sites for the centers. Subsequent discussions have been held between Minister Adamov and Secretary Richardson. I agree that the INEEL is the optimal site for this new mission because of its facilities and technical expertise working with spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials. Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to support DOE's efforts to deal with the important environmental impacts associated with the cold war and to support the creation of ICES.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Natural Resources Institute Act. This legislation will help find solutions to many of the problems that affect the health of our environment. The United States is faced with the challenge of protecting the environment, while maintaining economic growth. The use of our Nation's natural resources has resulted in a strong economy, but has left a legacy of fragmented land-use and regions of environmental degradation, including areas in my home State of Idaho. Unfortunately, there has not been a comprehensive and coordinated effort to address these environmental issues or an organized effort to help other communities from making similar mistakes. I believe that many of these problems could be avoided or remediated if the communities faced with land-use decisions had access to sound scientific research. Mr. Speaker, the Natural Resources Institute, using expertise from national laboratories and universities, will provide communities with access to sound scientific research when making environmental and land- use decisions. In addition, the Natural Resources Institute will coordinate research efforts to solve real-world environmental problems. It will be particularly helpful in addressing problems associated with agriculture, logging, grazing, hydro-power, fishing, mining, recreation, and other natural resource activities.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to cast a series of votes on September 14, 1998. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: S. 2206, rollcall No. 426. I would have voted ``aye''. H. Con. Res. 304, rollcall No. 427. I would have voted ``aye''. H. Con. Res. 254, rollcall No. 428. I would have voted ``aye''. H. Con. Res. 185, rollcall No. 429. I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to reaffirm Congress' intent in enacting the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). In enacting DSHEA, Congress intended to ensure that all Americans have access to factual information about vitamins and other dietary supplements so that they can make informed decisions about their health. Among other things, DSHEA requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to promulgate reasonable guidelines to regulate the content of dietary supplement labels. The expressed goal of this requirement is to ensure that the labels give consumers information necessary for them to make informed decisions on whether they want to take a particular supplement. The information on the labels is to be factual and cannot make claims regarding medical or disease benefits (which are reserved for FDA-approved drugs), but can inform consumers of the benefits and effects of the supplement. After some fits and starts, the FDA has complied with DSHEA, and consumers are benefiting. It seems only logical that the same information the FDA allows on the label of a dietary supplement should be permitted for use in advertising of that same supplement. However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking to regulate the advertising of dietary supplements by denying consumers some of the very information that DSHEA required the FDA to let them have. Not only is it unfair to require the manufacturers of these products to work under two sets of contradictory regulations, but it also repudiates the intent of Congress that consumers have accurate and helpful information in making decisions about their health. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that I am introducing would require the FTC to allow the same information in advertising of dietary supplements that is allowed on labels of the same products. It simply forbids one federal agency from adopting requirements for an industry that Congress prohibited another agency from adopting.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill for Idaho, as has already been said, but it is an interesting opportunity. This is an opportunity for us to generate increased revenues for Idaho public schools, with no tax increase and with simply a reformed management of our public lands. Before I go further, I want to give my sincere thanks to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Helen Chenoweth) for her strong support and advocacy not only for this legislation but for the young people of Idaho, as we have fought here to make sure our policies in Washington give us the best opportunity for our children in Idaho. H.R. 4166 is going to provide the State of Idaho the ability to increase funding for public education by at least $20 million, if not much more, annually, by restructuring the management of our endowment lands. In 1890, when Idaho was made a State, about 3\1/2\ million acres of land as a permanent endowment were given to the State to help the children throughout this century and beyond. Today, that endowment has a value of about $2.7 billion, with an accompanying endowment fund worth about another $700 million, a total value of about $3.4 billion. And yet, after evaluation, our Governor found its return was only about 3.3 percent, just barely keeping up with the rate of inflation. If that rate of performance could be increased by just 1 percent, it could generate as much as $30 million of extra dollars for Idaho schoolchildren. Because of that, Idaho's Governor Phil Batt appointed a Governor's Committee on Endowment Fund Investment Reform to look into what could be done. And that committee, chaired by Doug Dorn, reviewed the current structure of our endowment lands and evaluated what simple commonsense approaches we could find to improve the performance for our school children without raising taxes. H.R. 4166 is one of the reforms that this committee has suggested. I again have to give credit to Governor Batt, to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) and to the others who have worked so hard to make this legislation a reality today. The changes that are proposed allow Idaho to manage its resources in a more effective way that will benefit the school children of Idaho and give us the ability to more clearly strengthen our future. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be the sponsor of this legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues here in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a good friend and an Idahoan who has spent many untold hours working for the betterment of his community, his business, our great State of Idaho and the country. J. Kirk Sullivan has been a leader in Idaho's business community for many years, and now he is preparing to retire. It is important to note how his achievements and interests have made a difference for so many people, not only in Idaho but throughout the country. Although Kirk was not born in Idaho, and we are going to be willing to forgive him for that, much of his career has been spent working in Idaho. He will retire as a vice president of Boise Cascade Corporation. He has been a leader in the pulp and paper industry and spent countless hours working with government officials to ensure that business operates in the best manner possible. Most recently he led a team to negotiate the resolution to a very difficult environmental issue, a proposal called the cluster rule. The original proposal would have shut down dozens of paper mills and cost hundreds of jobs. The new proposal adopted with Kirk's leadership provided continued improvement in the industry's environmental performance and saved those critical jobs upon which families across this country rely. It is this kind of effort by Kirk Sullivan finding common sense solutions that benefit both the environment as well as the economy and the jobs that our families depend on that has made him such an important leader in Idaho. He has been honored for his service for Idaho's business and selected by the University of Idaho for various awards, including the Honorary Doctor of Science and a Presidential citation. His community involvement is varied and reaches from the Children's Home Society of Idaho to the board of directors for the Boise Master Chorale Board, to the Idaho Congressional Awards Program. I might note that I just came here from the Washington, D.C. National Congressional Awards Program in which the Idaho program which Kirk Sullivan so strongly supports was recognized as the strongest State program for the congressional awards system in America. We just awarded the Gold Metal of Honor to six of Idaho's young, bright people who have come up through the ranks because of the leadership of people like Kirk Sullivan helping to make a difference for our youth. Kirk Sullivan has always sought out the best in his community and has found ways to highlight it. I am pleased now to congratulate Kirk Sullivan for the tremendous efforts he has undertaken. We know that this is not the end of his service to Idaho and to his country, but I am pleased to count him among my many friends. I along with many and most of the rest of Idaho, in fact, with the many friends that Kirk has in Idaho, wish him the very best in his retirement. Congratulations, Kirk.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to the Foley-Miller-Markey-Kucinich-Sanders amendment to eliminate funding for the Depart of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI). As you know, NERI is the only new nuclear research and development program funded in the FY 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. This new program, which is supported by the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, will support long-term research in advanced nuclear technologies, such as proliferation-resistant reactor and fuel technologies and high efficiency reactor concepts. This competitive, peer-reviewed grants program will support the best ideas from the United States nuclear industry, universities, and national laboratories. In addition, NERI will help maintain the United States' leadership and expertise in advanced energy technologies. NERI enjoys strong support from the nuclear industry, universities, and DOE national laboratories. My home state of Idaho is privileged to have some of the most talented nuclear scientists and researchers in the world at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and at Argonne National Laboratory-West. NERI will permit these world-class scientists and engineers the opportunity to advance nuclear science and engineering well into the next century. If the United States expects to be considered a world leader in nuclear science and technology, it must fund programs like NERI that advance our knowledge in nuclear science and technology. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention an award-winning essay written by a constituent of mine on a subject I know is near to your heart--the importance of freedom and democracy. I'm pleased to announce that Amanda Burtenshaw of Monteview, Idaho, has been honored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States with a VFW 1998 Voice of Democracy Scholarship Award. Amanda's broadcast script is an important reminder of the need to be active in our efforts to ensure that we continue to enjoy our freedom and rights. With all of today's headlines bemoaning the lack of appreciation America's youth has for civics, it is encouraging to know that those as young as Amanda understand the importance of democracy and freedom. I would insert that award-winning script into the Record at this time. 1997-98 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition--``My Voice in Our Democracy'' (By Amanda Burtenshaw) A small girl stands wide-eyed on the street curb, watching as the numerous wonders of the annual parade promenade through the streets. Her fascination is obvious as she stands among thousands of people enjoying the celebration. As three prancing white horses enter the scene, she recognizes the American flag, to which she pledges allegiance each morning in her first grade classroom. Dismayed at the inability to make her voice be heard above the crowd, she does the most appropriate thing she can think of. She raises to her full height of four feet, steps out as far into the street as she dares, and places a tiny hand over her heart as she watches, in reverent sincerity, Old Glory pass by. Few notice the innocent gesture, those that do chuckle and remark, ``How cute!'' The crowd grows silent, however, as a war-hardened veteran pulls his horse to the side and halts in front of the little girl. He leans down, speaking directly to her, but loud enough the crowd can hear. ``Thank you,'' he solemnly states, ``for showing proper respect to our flag. You are the first patriot I've seen today.'' With that, he salutes the girl gallantly and wheels to rejoin the procession, but not before the tears in his eyes are witnesses by the crowd. No one looks at anyone, and all sit and ponder upon what they have just witnessed. Citizens of America, does it require an office of importance or a battle on the front lines to be an important member of our blessed country? Certainly not, for even through the simple placing of the hand on a heart, many can be affected. The key is to want to be involved, to want to make a difference. And still, wanting to make a difference is not enough, we must do all we can to put that want into effect. A common belief in our society says ``faith without works is nothing'', is this not so in the case of desire without action? Yet, I cannot make you take action . . . but I can lead by example. I am studying our form of government, and developing opinions and values of my own. I am getting involved wherever I can in organizations that will better my political knowledge. I am developing talents for effective public speaking and persuasive writing in order to make my ``voice'' understandable and easily heard. I am dedicating my life to my country, and though I may not die for the freedom of my country, I can live for the betterment of our democracy. I am a youth in America. I am the future of our country. My actions today will determine the conditions of tomorrow. Everyday, I enjoy so many blessings that come with living in this country. I can put gas in my car and drive to a public school, where I can learn skills that will aide me in the job field later on. I have the freedom to choose my career, to marry whom I please, to have as many children as I want, and then to raise them in a society where they are encouraged to become the best they can possibly be. I can sit down to a meal at Thanksgiving, my family surrounding me, and feel safe in the security of my home, my town, and my country. The simple ability to say my prayers at night, to the God I have chosen as mine, in the manner I feel proper for me is the greatest blessing of all. Everything I have, I owe to America, and to the system so widely developed by the Fathers of this country, who were not afraid to make their voices heard. Is it asking too much to take the time out of my life to become involved in the institution which secures my life, my liberty, and the pursuit of my happiness? I think not. And in the service of my country, I will learn to love it even more, and if the time comes to fight to preserve the freedoms of America, then I will, in the words of singer Lee Greenwood, ``. . . Gladly stand up next to you, and defend her still today, for there (is) no doubt I love this land. God bless the U.S.A.!''. Thank you.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention the exciting news from the Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan. Picabo Street, an outstanding ski racer and pride of Sun Valley, Idaho, which I have the honor of representing, has captured the gold medal in the Women's Super-G event. This announcement is particularly exciting for the whole country because this medal represents one of the first two medals won by any U.S. competitors in Nagano. My colleagues will also be interested to know that, in addition to being from the world-renowned ski resort of Sun Valley, she is also named for the town of Picabo in Idaho's Second Congressional District. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, Picabo Street has already become a well-known sports star from her silver medal triumph in Lillehammer, Norway, four years ago. But yesterday's accomplishment is much more heroic when you consider that she has only just returned from a knee operation that would have ended most careers and a frightening fall twelve days ago that resulted in her becoming unconscious. I'm pleased to join my colleagues in saluting her today. And the news only gets better. The Super-G is not Picabo Street's preferred event. As a downhill specialist, her triumph in the yesterday's event firmly establishes Picabo Street as the favorite for Saturday's Women's Downhill event. Mr. Speaker, our heartfelt thanks go out to Picabo Street for ending America's medal drought in Nagano. I'm sure you will be watching eagerly the contest on Saturday.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding to me and I rise to express my support for overriding the President's veto of H.R. 2631, the Line Item Veto Cancellation Act. Mr. Speaker, I am a long-time supporter of the line-item veto. This new law makes possible a more restrained Congress, but also entrusts the President with the important responsibility of using this new power wisely. That is why I was so disappointed to see the President make a misinformed decision in canceling funding for 38 military construction projects, including 2 in my home state of Idaho, and then repeating this mistake by vetoing this legislation. As we all now know, based on faulty and outdated information provided by the Department of Defense, President Clinton eliminated needed funds for a B-1B bomber avionics facility for low-altitude navigation and a F-15C squadron building for planning and briefing combat crews at Mountain Home Air Force Base. Both of these projects are among the Air Force's top priorities and were a part of the President's own 1999 and 2000 Pentagon budgets. These facilities are critical because the 366th Composite Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base represents one of our nation's premier rapid-deployment forces in times of an emergency. Even Defense Secretary Cohen has reflected on the critical role of the 366th Wing in our national security structure and acknowledged that ``it must maintain peak readiness to respond rapidly and effectively to diverse situations and conflicts.'' For service at home and in the Middle East, Central America, and Europe, the men and women of Mountain Home Air Force Base have answered the call of their country; it is only right and proper that the Commander in Chief recognize this important commitment. I was pleased to assist in the effort to provide the President with line-item veto authority. However, this power is significant and must be practiced with great care and attention to preserve the system of ``checks and balances'' in our Constitution. It is my hope that the President understands this and will in the future only exercise the veto in appropriate cases. At this time, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Packard, Chairman Skeen, and the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for considering this measure today to overturn the President's veto. This action today will send a strong message to the Senate and White House that the American people expect careful use of the line-item veto. It will also demonstrate to opponents of the line-item veto that the new law works and is consistent with our Constitution.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this Line Item Veto Cancellation Act. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding to me and I rise to express my support for H.R. 2631, the Line Item Veto Cancellation Act. As a long-time supporter of the line-item veto, I was particularly disappointed to see the President make a misinformed decision in canceling funding for 38 military construction projects, including 2 in my home State of Idaho. Based on faulty and outdated information provided by the Department of Defense, President Clinton eliminated needed funds for a B-1B bomber avionics facility for low-altitude navigation and an F-15C squadron building for planning and briefing combat crews at Mountain Home Air Force Base. Both of these projects were among the Air Force's top priorities and were a part of the President's 1999 and 2000 Pentagon budgets. The 366th Composite Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base represents one of our Nation's premier rapid-deployment forces in times of an emergency. Even Defense Secretary Cohen has reflected on the critical role of the 366th Wing in our national security structure and acknowledged that ``it must maintain peak readiness to respond rapidly and effectively to diverse situations and conflicts.'' For service at home and in the Middle East, Central America, and Europe, the men and women of Mountain Home Air Force Base have answered the call of their country; it is only right and proper that the Commander-in-Chief recognize this important commitment. Providing the President with line-item veto authority was an important goal of the last Congress, and I was pleased to assist in that effort. However, this power is significant and must be practiced with great care and attention. It is my hope that the President understands this and will only exercise the veto in appropriate cases. At this time, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Packard, Representative Skeen, Representative Hefley, and the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for considering this measure today to overturn the President's vetoes. The Senate has already voted overwhelmingly to overturn the President's actions, so I hope that we can also send a strong message to the White House this afternoon by passing this measure with a veto-proof majority.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, once again, the entire story has not been told. The fact is that this amendment would amend the Price-Anderson Act, a statute that was carefully crafted over two entire Congresses with great deliberation. There has been no hearing on this amendment, and it makes a dramatic change in an area of law that has always been very controversial. This is not a simple matter. Contractor liability was hotly contested when the Price-Anderson Act was debated in the 100th and 101st Congresses. Congress did not bar indemnification of contractors from damages resulting from negligence out of recognition that such a course would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Price-Anderson Act. Why? The fact is that although the impression was made in the debate in favor of this motion that there would be no compensation for those who might be injured by accidents involving nuclear transmission of fuel, the Price-Anderson Act does provide for compensation. It simply provides that it is done through a process that will provide immediate compensation to victims, rather than forcing them into expensive and protracted litigation. Again, this is an issue that has been debated hotly over two Congresses. It will be visited again in the reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act before transportation begins, and the impression that was tried to be made by those who debated in favor of this motion that there is no compensation for victims of such accidents is simply false. There is a system of compensation in place. This amendment should be rejected.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, once again we are debating another amendment which clearly is going to stop the purpose of the bill from moving forward. H.R. 1270 establishes a presumptive radiation protection standard of 100 millirems or 1/3 background levels. This standard was not chosen arbitrarily, as those who support the amendment seem to suggest. Instead it reflects the judgment of the International Council for Radiation Protection and is the standard that has been adopted by the NRC in its regulations for general public protection. H.R. 1270 further allows NRC to amend the radiation standard if they deem it necessary for the protection of public health and safety. And it is the NRC, not the EPA, that is the agency with expertise on radiation. NRC has concluded that the standard in H.R. 1270, and I quote, will fully protect public health and safety and the environment. And H.R. 1270 requires the NRC to consult with the EPA. But another point needs to be made. That is, this bill does not set a standard out of just the desire for Congress to move ahead on this. It sets it out of frustration with inaction by the EPA. In 1982, the EPA was directed to promulgate these standards. It failed to do so. Fifteen years later it has not established such a standard. In 1992, the EPA was directed to establish standards for radiation releases and still after entering into a science study and getting the results of that study in 1995, it has not issued those standards. Continued inaction by the EPA should not be allowed to block us from moving forward. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] often states that the radiation standard in H.R. 1270 will cause cancer deaths. The fact is, however, that two years ago the NRC told the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] that the radiation standard in H.R. 1270 would protect human health. On July 13, 1995, the NRC wrote to him and told him that this radiation standard will likely cause zero cancer deaths. In the letter the NRC stated that there would only be cancer deaths if a population of 1,400 people lived on top of the repository for 70 years. And Yucca Mountain, as we know, has been withdrawn into this bill and is very sparsely populated. The fact is that the average American is exposed to 300 millirems of natural radiation per year. This standard is safe. The agencies involved have declared it to be safe. And if it needs to be adjusted, it can be adjusted. What about the issue of human intrusion? The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] made a good point. He speculated, I think with a little smile on his face, about what extreme circumstances we could hypothesize that could happen in the future. I guess we could hypothesize that the entire earth population would be obliterated by some tragedy, that we would lose all ability to communicate or understand what had happened, and that someone would then go to Yucca Mountain and drill down through the core of the earth into the facility and cause a release. It is exactly that type of speculation that has caused the National Academy of Sciences to say that reaching a conclusion on these types of assumptions is not possible in terms of predicting human behavior thousands of years into the future, and to say that for that reason it is hardly surprising that Congress would seek a resolution of these issues so that the EPA and that those conducting the studies do not have to go on with endless speculation about these types of activities, can make sensible, common sense analysis and move forward in a common sense way rather than going on with these irrational ideas about speculating about such highly remote possibilities. Those are the issues we are facing in this amendment. It is one more attempt to derail this legislation. Mr. Chairman, we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment bars the Department of Energy from planning for nuclear waste transportation in any fiscal year in which funds are deemed to be insufficient by the Federal Energy Management Agency to ensure adequate and trained emergency response teams along all the transportation routes to be used in each such fiscal year. On its face this sounds like a good idea, but when we look at it, it is another amendment designed to prevent transportation of nuclear waste. It is going to create a circumstance in which, instead of addressing this issue once and for all, we create now yet again another regulatory mechanism, where every year we have to fight in this Congress over whether we are going to have in place the necessary structure to move ahead with transporting the spent nuclear fuel of this country to permanent storage. This amendment would prevent the Department of Energy from beginning to accept nuclear waste in the year 2002. Last year a Federal court said that the United States has a legal obligation to begin acceptance of nuclear waste in the year 1998. H.R. 1270 provides for that acceptance at least by the year 2002. This amendment would delay the beginning of that acceptance for years. In addition, once FEMA was able to make determinations as required by this amendment, opponents of the nuclear waste program would seek annually to cut funding for emergency response training or to otherwise argue that the funding simply was not sufficient, and if that was not enough, they would try to work through regulatory routes to get FEMA to simply say they were not ready. If their efforts were successful, nuclear transportation would be blocked for another entire year, year after year, as the process of debate moved forward. This amendment is designed to create yet one more venue where we debate endlessly the question of how will we deal with spent nuclear fuel in this country. It is not designed to improve training of emergency response teams or promote that safe transportation; it is designed to keep nuclear waste where it now is, spread out across the country in scores of sites in 35 or more States. We have, as we have discussed repeatedly tonight, a safe transportation system. If we need more safety, we can appropriate the necessary dollars to do so. I do not believe there would be much objection to appropriating for strengthened and increased training in FEMA. But we do not need to fall for the trick of tying that FEMA funding to the ability of the Department of Energy to transport the spent nuclear fuel in this country as is necessary for the security and safety of our Nation.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in opposition to the amendment. A lot has been said about this being an amendment to add risk assessment into the legislation, but properly understood, it really should be called the additional regulatory bureaucracy and delay amendment. It is very clear from the debate we have had here already that the action required by this amendment would be to force the Department of Energy to undertake a risk assessment before it takes any action under this act. And since the amendment does not define which DOE actions require a risk assessment, each action would probably end up requiring such a risk assessment. We have heard discussion about whether there is unreasonable risk involved in this entire process. I think that the proponents of the amendment and the opponents of the bill would have Members believe that we are simply transporting nuclear fuel around the country without any evaluation of risk standards or that we are evaluating the sites without consideration of environmental harm or risk or other considerations. The fact of the matter is just the opposite. As I said in my earlier debate, the regulatory regime for radioactive material transport has been very heavily evaluated. It focuses on risk extremely aggressively and has an absolutely perfect safety record. I went through that information previously but over the last 30 years, we have had 2500 shipments of spent nuclear fuel in the United States; since 1957, 667 shipments of Navy fuel, over a million miles of travel, and in the last 22 years the Department of Energy under these programs has transported nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials nearly 100 million miles. All of this has occurred without a radioactive release. Those who would have Members believe that risk is not carefully evaluated, monitored and regulated in our current nuclear regime in the United States are misstating the reality. The fact is that we will have adequate protections both environmentally and in terms of the risk, and there is no reason why we should not proceed with the legislation that is now before us to solve this critical issue to this country.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of this important piece of legislation, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This is a very important issue to Idaho because, as I think most people now understand, Idaho has been the recipient of a significant amount of the spent nuclear fuel in the country to be stored on a supposedly temporary basis, but the progress toward permanent storage needs to be resolved and the interim storage facility issue needs to be resolved. Idaho currently has 260 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and 10,000 cubic meters of high level nuclear waste, and we must proceed with resolving this issue to protect the geologic areas of Idaho that are now jeopardized by the permanent, apparently permanent storage of the waste in those locations. The point I would like to make is that Idaho is not unique here. Perhaps it is Idaho that has had a significantly larger amount of the spent nuclear fuel shipped to it, even though it has not generated any. But this bill is very much proenvironment because it removes nuclear spent fuel and high level nuclear waste from over 100 sites to only one remote site. My friend from Massachusetts said that, in his argument against this bill, that we will see spent nuclear fuel transported through 40 different States. I think a better way to point it out is that we will see spent nuclear fuel transported out of about 40 States and out of over 100 sites to only one remote site where the location has been designed to have the least amount of environmental impact. With regard to that transportation issue, the regulatory regime for radioactive material transport has worked well in this country. As the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] just said, it will be transported safely. Over the past 30 years there were 2,500 shipments of spent nuclear fuel in the United States. Since 1957, there have been 667 shipments of Navy spent fuel over 1 million miles. And in the last 22 years, the Department of Energy has transported nuclear weapons and special materials nearly 100 million miles, and all of that has been done without radioactive release. There has been an attack saying that there will be insufficient environmental analysis. Again, the true facts are that H.R. 1270 requires an environmental impact statement before every major Federal action in the Nuclear Waste Program. It is true that it says that alternate sites are not to be evaluated, but that is because this Congress is designating the evaluating site. And those who would say that a full environmental impact analysis is not being made are simply mischaracterizing the terms and provisions of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is critical to this country. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held, in an important case, that DOE had a legal obligation to begin accepting this material by January of 1998. That cannot be done unless this type of legislation is moved properly into place to provide for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. This is important, critical legislation to the country. I encourage its adoption by the House.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome a new Member to the Crapo organization, Tyler Adam Gorsuch, the adopted son of my administrative assistant Jane Gorsuch and her husband, George. Jane has been with me since I was first sworn into Congress in 1993, and Tyler is their first child. Tyler arrived in the United States from Seoul, South Korea, on September 4, and now he is 7 months old, happy, and healthy. Tyler is already busy supporting our majority party. He has indicated as only a child can his total support for the family friendly practices in our office, and he is also politically active, as he has volunteered to assist me in my next election. He came to visit my office last week and provided the day's entertainment to my staff. During his second visit to our office he provided invaluable advice to me on the political outlook for my home State of Idaho. As a father of five children, I understand firsthand the joys of parenthood. My wife Susan and I enjoy watching our children grow through each stage of development, and I know that Jane and George will love and enjoy Tyler just as much. Congratulations to Jane and George, and best of luck to them as they embark on the most fantastic journey of their lives, parenthood.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, a tragic but common event in many U.S. cities came for the first time to the capital of Idaho, Boise. A police officer was killed in the line of duty--the first officer ever killed during the 100 years of operation for the Boise Police Department. The incident resulted from an altercation between two suspects, who were also killed in the confrontation with officers. Mark Stall was killed on early Saturday morning when he and another officer pulled over a vehicle for a traffic violation. The result was a shoot- out between two suspects and police officer. Another officer, Ron Winegar, was injured during the confrontation and remains hospitalized. Officer Stall was a remarkable young man, one driven to a career in law enforcement from a dangerous encounter during his teen-age years, when he and another young man were abducted and threatened at gunpoint. Boise benefited tremendously through his 3 years of service on the Boise Police Force. He leaves behind a wife and two young daughters and a community attempting to cope with a traumatic loss of one of those entrusted to protect and serve. On Wednesday, businesses in Boise closed and flags flew at half-staff as Boise police, for the first time, buried one of their own. A newspaper columnist in Boise declared that Boise lost ``its innocence with the death'' of Officer Stall. That may be true--it is a tragic circumstance, one that has been repeated far too often throughout our country. We should all reflect on the loss experienced by those in Boise and how our communities can once again become safe havens for our families.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2472, the bill just considered.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2165, the bill just considered.