Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1131 the Idaho Land Enhancement Act. This legislation directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to exchange land with the State of Idaho, including key parcels in the Boise Foothills and North Idaho.

Protecting the Boise Foothills from unchecked development has long been a priority for residents of Boise, Idaho. In May 2001 the citizens of Boise, in one of the highest voter turnouts in city history, elected to tax themselves in order to provide funding to secure permanent public open space in the Boise Foothills. The land exchange before you today is a key component of that effort.

The exchange concept was developed between the Idaho Department of Lands, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service with the assistance of the City of Boise. It uses both Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service acreage to balance an exchange with Idaho State Endowment lands on an equal-value basis. Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and Idaho Department of Lands staff have identified parcels

that help reduce threats to federal forests and grasslands identified by the Chief of the Forest Service while conveying land to the State of Idaho that help the State's endowment fund beneficiaries.

I introduced identical legislation H.R. 2718, and I appreciate all of the assistance we got from the House Resources Committee in moving this bill through the process. This land exchange is an agreement on which everyone wins. The state of Idaho gets more timberland; the schools get more timber revenue; the people of the Boise area get more open space; and the state and federal agencies involved get a higher level of management efficiency.

I would appreciate your support of this small but important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4377) to extend the time required for construction of a hydroelectric project, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4377, the Arrowrock Project Hydroelectric License Extension Bill, which extends the time in the hydroelectric license to begin construction of a 15-megawatt project by 3 years from the date of passage of this bill. The facility will be built at the existing Arrowrock Dam on the Boise River in Idaho and has been designated to minimize impacts there.

Over the past decade, this project has been delayed by a number of factors not necessarily within the control of the project developer, including delays related to the bull trout being declared threatened under the Endangered Species Act. We have now solved that problem and we have been assured that the project is ready to go once the license is extended.

This project has bipartisan support. It will further develop the hydroelectric facilities at existing dams, something we promoted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, so I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge the immediate passage of 4377.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4417) to provide for the reinstatement of a license for a certain Federal Energy Regulatory project.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4417, the Tygart Dam Project Hydroelectric License Extension Bill, extends the time in the hydroelectric license to start construction on the project until December 31, 2007. This is another project that has experienced delays. In this case, unfavorable market conditions delayed the start of the project. Today, those conditions have been resolved and the project is ready to begin. The project will be built at an existing dam, thus minimizing impacts. It is anticipated that the project will provide a substantial economic boost to the city of Grafton, West Virginia, as well as valuable hydroelectric power, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I also yield back the balance of my time, and I urge the immediate passage of H.R. 4417.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 244) to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Wyoming.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the Senate bill now under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 244, the Swift Creek Hydroelectric License Extension Bill, authorizing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the time specified in the project license to begin construction of the Swift Creek Hydroelectric Project for three 2-year periods, a total of 6 years.

The Swift Creek Project is a 1.5 megawatt project in Wyoming. This bill has passed the Senate with unanimous consent, and passage of the bill today will send this bill directly to the President's desk and allow the further development of clean renewable hydroelectric power. I urge my colleagues to support S. 244.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge the immediate passage of S. 244.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 176) to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the legislation now under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 176, the Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Licensing Extension Act, which authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the time specified in the project license to begin construction of the Reynolds Creek hydroelectric project for three 2-year periods, a total of 6 years. The Reynolds Creek project is a five megawatt project on Prince of Wales Island in Alaska.

This bill has passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Passage of this bill today will send it to the President's desk and allow further development of clean, renewable hydroelectric power.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge the immediate passage of the Senate bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 971) to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric projects in Connecticut, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 971, a bill to provide license extensions of time to begin construction of three hydroelectric projects in Connecticut: the 440 kilowatt Hale project, the 373 kilowatt Collinsville Upper and the 1.1 megawatt Collinsville Lower projects. The bill extends the start time period for construction until May 30, 2007, for all three projects, and also authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the time and the start date by two additional 2-year periods.

These renewable hydroelectric projects will provide a boost to the local economy, remove river debris and enhance fishery resources by constructing fish ladders. They also provide a valuable new resource of hydroelectric energy in the New England area.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for the information that he has given us; and I appreciate his personal perspective on the continuation of the licenses for these dams and the construction.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge the immediate passage of H.R. 971.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the contributions and character of former Idaho State Senator Claire Wetherell, an Idaho woman who is the very embodiment of civic virtue, community involvement and--most of all--class.

A municipal park named in her honor on Monday, September 18, 2006, is a testament to the admiration and affection that the people of her hometown of Mountain Home, ID, hold for Senator Wetherell.

Earlier this year, she was presented with both the key to the city of Mountain Home and a lifetime achievement award from the Elmore Medical Center Auxiliary, which she served as its first president in 1955.

Senator Wetherell also led the bond issue campaign that resulted in construction of the original Elmore Memorial Hospital. In addition, she put her experience as a U.S. Navy nurse during World War II to work as one of the first nurses at the new hospital.

It was my great privilege to serve with Senator Wetherell for 10 of my 14 years as Idaho's lieutenant governor and presiding officer of the Idaho Senate.

Her 12 years in the Idaho Senate, and her 8 years on the Mountain Home City Council, showed that no public official could have a better friend than Claire Wetherell, or a more determined political adversary.

It didn't matter whether you were a Democrat or a Republican; if she liked you she would go out of her way to extend the hand of compromise and conciliation. Yet there was almost nothing an opponent could do that she wasn't fully prepared to challenge.

Senator Wetherell served the public interest with a passion for justice and equal rights, and she applied the same standards to herself. She would make her case with great intensity, but also would be the first to admit when she was mistaken. She was quick to pursue the truth, and just as quick to acknowledge those rare occasions when that pursuit went astray.

Senator Claire Wetherell deserves the congratulations of Congress, and a grateful Nation's thanks for her lifetime of contributions to the people of Mountain Home and all the people of Idaho.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing to the actions of Kenneth and Linda Steigers of Juliaetta, Idaho.

Nine years before the Steigers purchased a section of land in Clearwater County, Idaho, a flood tore through the area. It destroyed many large cottonwood trees and other vegetation in a riparian zone of Lolo Creek which runs through their property. Eventually, grass grew back near the banks of the creek, which attracted grazing cattle. At that time the Bureau of Land Management raised concerns that the cattle may be adversely affecting the water quality of the creek and the salmon spawning beds in the area.

The Steigers, through support from the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, have worked diligently to rectify the problem. They used program funding to build a fence around the riparian area and also developed a spring at the top of a nearby slope to provide an alternate drinking area for the cattle. With the cattle no longer grazing in the area, cottonwood trees and shrubs are growing in the area again. The salmon habitat has improved and elk, deer, geese, ducks, blue herons, and other small water birds have become abundant.

For their actions as CRP participants the Steigers will be presented with the Conservation Reserve Program Outstanding American Conservationist Award by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns at the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Wednesday, September 13, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the actions of Kenneth and Linda Steigers. It is accomplishments like this that make our world a more beautiful and enjoyable place to live.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I submit for the Record an editorial from the Dallas Morning News and also an editorial from the Star-Telegram.

A Humane End: Slaughter Prevents Wider Suffering

[From the Dallas Morning News, Sept. 7, 2006]

Few issues roil the emotions more than those involving the

dependent and helpless. Hence, the turbulent debate over a

proposal in Congress to end the legal slaughter of horses

that feed overseas meat markets.

It's not right to dismiss or belittle the strongly held

beliefs of animal advocates on the matter. They argue that

the horse is a loyal service and companion animal that should

not end up on someone's dinner table. Indeed, most Americans'

sensibilities align with that view.

But the grisly alternative to humane slaughter is a slow,

painful end for tens of thousands of castoff animals every

year.

In a poignant irony, major veterinary groups are lined up

against a slaughter ban. They argue persuasively that enough

buyers or adoptive homes couldn't be found for all horses

deemed too old, unfit or expensive by their owners.

Maintaining a horse for its natural life can exceed

$25,000, even short of veterinary care.

The federal government, despite help from rescue

organizations, already fails to find homes for thousands of

wild horses culled each year from herds roaming national

grasslands. Think of boosting the number of unwanted animals

by the 60,000 to 100,000 horses that now go to slaughter

annually. That would recklessly invite widespread abandonment

and starvation.

Two of the nation's three horse slaughterhouses are in

North Texas, the foreign-owned Dallas Crown in Kaufman and

Beltex in Fort Worth. It's a closely regulated business aimed

at humane treatment, from transport to euthanasia.

Some slaughter opponents say a better end for unwanted

horses would be veterinarian-administered euthanasia. That

position ignores the pivotal issue of added cost for

rendering, incineration or burial.

Exported horse meat heads primarily to Europe and Asia,

where no cultural taboo is attached to consumption. Top

consumers are mostly developing nations with a need for added

protein in the diet. Thus, the slaughtered horse makes a

final contribution to the cycle of life.

In this country, at least, the law seeks to guarantee a

humane end, in keeping with the horse's honored place in

national lore. Congress should devote its energies toward

keeping things that way, thus avoiding the unwanted

consequence of needless suffering.

Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives is voting today on an amendment to the Horse Protection Act that actually would irresponsibly endanger the welfare of the very animal that it purports to help. I oppose H.R. 503, which is driven by raw emotion and misinformation rather than by the facts. By eliminating the option of humane slaughter of the horses, the bill provides no directive as to what will happen to the 90,000 unwanted horses annually processed in our slaughter facilities. It increases the probability of unwanted horses becoming the victims of neglect, starvation, or abandonment. It criminalizes a legitimate and legal U.S. industry. It eliminates hundreds of U.S. jobs. It mandates costs estimated at $3 billion to $4 billion on private citizens. And it creates far more problems than it actually solves.

It limits horse owners' choices for disposing of their animals, and it infringes on the owners' private property rights. Private property rights have long been held dear by the families and the land owners in the west, and for good reason. Their farms and ranches have been their livelihood and part of their national heritage since the frontier was closed and the west was settled.

Not many months ago, many of my colleagues, most of those who are on the opposition side of this bill, on a bipartisan basis, rose in indignation at the Kelo v. New London, Connecticut, the City of New London, Connecticut decision, because it was taking private property rights.

I have stood many times with many of those folks who are now proponents of this bill to protect intellectual private property rights. I see no difference. And like it or not, a horse is private property. They are not humans. They must be treated humanely and cared for appropriately. However, when a horse is no longer wanted or cannot be cared for, Congress should not be in the business of deciding how the animals can or cannot be disposed of.

We fight for the protection of personal property rights and intellectual property rights, everything from dirt to ideas, Mr. Chairman. This is no different. I strongly encourage Members to oppose this misguided effort and continue preserving a strong tradition of private personal property rights in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one of my favorite subjects, and that is the Constitution of the United States. But I want to focus a little bit more today than I generally do and specifically on the 10th amendment to the Constitution.

The 10th amendment to the Constitution, affectionately referred to by most everyone who really reveres the Constitution, would recognize it as the so-called ``States' rights amendment.'' Actually, Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that it was the contract between the States and the creation of the States that we know today as the Federal Government.

Many folks today I believe have it wrong. They think that the Federal Government created the States, whereas, in fact, it was the original 13 States that, in union together, created the Federal Government. And it has always been my long-held belief and opinion that the created can never be greater than the creator in any sense.

And so in my opportunity today, I want to remind the people of that contract between the Federal Government and the States. And it is a simple contract; so perhaps one might suggest that it was never written by a lawyer because it is only 28 words, and it says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, I may have gotten that a little confused in my enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker; but my enthusiasm for the spirit and the heart of the 10th amendment is undiminished because it was in 1760, when King George III took over for King George II and decided to put even more restraints on the young and upcoming colonies, even more laws and even more regulations, even more taxes and confiscation of their property, it was then only some 16 years later that the 13 colonies finally said we have had enough and we are not going to absorb any more of this abuse from any king, let alone King George III. So history now pretty well has set forth in the agenda the circumstances that took place and finally, of course, after the Declaration of Independence, then after the War of Independence and the creation of the Constitution.

In fact, few people realize today that the Constitution did not include what we know as the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. And it was only as a promise by the States and the Continental Congress that they would at a later time include the Bill of Rights or something to the effect of the Bill of Rights that many of the States then adopted. In fact, during the Continental Congress it was Patrick Henry that said that he refused and would refuse, and he eventually did, to sign the Constitution because he said, I smell a rat. But Lord only knows here was a gentleman that had an olfactory memory that could reach over 200 years out into the future and here we are today.

But I would tell you that Patrick Henry did say that he would not sign the Constitution or agree to it unless it included a Bill of Rights, an enumeration of all the rights of man. And several folks, including one James Wilson, took that under advisement. And they came back several days later, and to the presiding officer at that time, George Washington, they said, Mr. President, we have found it unwise to enumerate all the rights of man for if in our effort to do so we should leave one out, it will have thought to be the property of government; so leave us instead, direct our labors to enumerating the powers and the authorities of government, and if it is not stated, the power and the authority does not belong then to the government.

How wise that was and how wise and respectful we should be and would be today should we honor those kinds of thoughts, should we honor those kinds of limitations, because as we know, including the 10th amendment, each and every amendment of the first 10 amendments was, in fact, a limitation on government. And if you read it time and time again, it always says the Congress shall not, the government cannot, the government will not be allowed.

So I commend to all those who are listening today to get the Constitution out, read those 28 words, and recognize that that is the true contract between this Federal Government in Washington, D.C. and the governments of the 50 States.

Madam Speaker, today, we are debating H.R. 2563, a bill to provide broad authority for the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct feasibility studies of new and enhanced water storage opportunities on the Snake, Boise, and Payette Rivers in Idaho. I introduced this legislation and am working for its passage because I believe it is important to find new water resources rather than just dividing up the scarce resources we currently have.

I have been told that consumptive demand in the Boise and Payette basins will increase by at least 135,000 acre feet over the next 20 years. Growing demand now is being met by increased ground water use and conservation efforts, but those are short-term responses that beg the question of future needs.

We also know that most of the water supply in both basins already is allocated and there is little excess capacity to meet future demands. Further, the ability to capture and store additional water is limited by requirements for minimum fish flow, maintenance flows, flood control and annual refill of existing reservoirs. These factors make this undertaking difficult at best, but I believe it is worthwhile and necessary.

Our communities, our economy and our families all depend on water to survive, grow and prosper. Deciding how to use such a rare commodity in a way that does the greatest good for the greatest number, while hewing to the principles of law and equity on which our society is based, is an enormous challenge. The task is further complicated, and brought into sharp focus, by the 6-year drought Idaho recently experienced and is seen in much of the arid West.

Our energy, our economy and our environment all will depend on the ability to anticipate and prioritize future water needs. Our children, our grandchildren and generations to come all are depending on the choices we make today. Preserving water rights while providing for continued growth are a top priority of mine and I will continue to work to achieve that goal.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the courageous actions of Mr. Patrick W. Mott of Rathdrum, Idaho.

On February 27, 2005, Henry W. Scheller was ice fishing on North Idaho's Lower Twin Lake approximately 700 feet from the closest bank. Mr. Scheller did not realize he was on weak ice, and he fell through, plunging into the frigid lake. Unable to pull himself from the water, he began calling out for help. His calls were heard by Patrick Mott, a 65-year-old retired logger, who was working outside his lakeside home.

As his wife called for help, Mr. Mott quickly gathered a metal dinghy and rope and set out on the ice to rescue the struggling Scheller. About 10 feet from Scheller the ice around Mott collapsed and he too fell into the water. Mott's attempts to pull himself out were unsuccessful, but firefighters arrived on the scene shortly after and were able to rescue Mott, then Scheller from the water.

Mr. Mott returned to the bank unaided, and was uninjured. Scheller received medical attention after being safely taken to shore. Although Mr. Mott did not successfully rescue Scheller, his selfless actions are a lesson to us all. Without hesitation, Mr. Mott put himself in harm's way to come to the aid of a perfect stranger.

For his heroic actions, Patrick Mott was awarded the Carnegie Medal, given to those who risk their lives while saving or attempting to save the lives of others.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the actions of Patrick Mott. May his selflessness be an example we can follow in our own lives.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona.

I was sitting in my office watching all these wonderful and heartrending speeches from folks about their economies and iron mills shutting down, steel mills shutting down, industries being totally lost, and now it is up to this Congress to pass through earmark appropriations in some legislative vehicles that are not the appropriate vehicle for it, which is why it is so hard for my friend from Arizona to find out where this money is going and why it is going and who asked for it.

But I am reminded from time to time that this was the same Congress that has passed regulation that has prohibited us in the west, in Idaho, from harvesting trees, from mining minerals, from, in fact, earning a living or even building, as my good friend from Kentucky just said, in talking about building a whole new industry.

Well, we would like that opportunity, too. In fact, we would like this Congress just to keep their promises to us when they shut down our forests and shut down the mining and halted much of the grazing on that land in Idaho and said, we will do this, we will make you PILT payments, payment in lieu of taxes. Because you have so much Federal ground in Idaho, a lot of that property does not render any taxes, and so we will make that payment for you. Well, you are about $148 million short this year alone.

So I would say to these Members of Congress that have such huge hearts for their own particular little locales and their own particular little projects, that if you are going to do this, for gosh sakes, let those of us that would like to do it without all your help help ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we pause long enough during this important debate tonight to remember back to another time in a place not too far from this place.

During the heated debate and many times rancorous discussions on their efforts to establish a government that would elevate the individual above the crown, above the prince, above the king, and above the head of state, much was said about the doubtfulness of victory and the certainty of failure. Caution was urged, voted on, and rejected. The hope and the promise, the

value for the chance at being free was so strong that our Founding Fathers measured well that the risk was worth the reward.

Now is our opportunity once again to revive that spirit. And in doing so, we demonstrate to ourselves, the people of the United States, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the people of the world that we are worthy of the suggestion that we are the beacon of freedom for the world and we share that light with pride, with honor, and hope.

The Iraqi people who yearn for freedom, I am confident, do so with no less courage and resolve than those who so boldly signed the Declaration of Independence and at that time set this Nation on a destiny of freedom envied by all peoples of the world who suffer under the burden of tyranny.

Our allies throughout the war for independence did not pack up and go home when the going got tough. They believed in us, as I believe that we should believe in the Iraqi people. They stayed the course, as I believe we should.

Mr. Speaker, in his book ``The Glorious Quest,'' James R. Evans gives us all a thought that we should ponder as we approach this freedom- rendering vote. He said, ``No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United States were a failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours.''

By our actions here today, we are deciding whether or not the Iraqi people are worthy of living in freedom. This choice is ours. Those of us who will favor or deny this resolution surely decide the worth of the Iraqi people.

In my 1 minute, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of points that were already touched on by Mr. Hastings, but are awfully important to the whole idea of the consolidation of TRACON.

First off, the FAA has furnished us with rules on cost savings which are just totally unrealistic.

Number two, in the Boise airport to which Mr. Hastings referred we have not only general aviation, commercial aviation and the National Guard control out of the Boise tower, but we also have the National Interagency Fire Center, which attacks the wildfires on BLM and Forest Service ground all over the West.

And finally, I would say this is such a bad idea, but it would be a terrorist dream. To consolidate all of our air traffic control into one center would be a tremendous target for those folks.

And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, once again I thank Mr. Hastings for his leadership on this and for the time. And I would like to offer letters from the Governor, from the National Guard Bureau and also from other interested parties for the record.

Mr. Chairman, in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings, the FAA has embarked on a plan to collocate TRACON--radar--facilities from airports around the United States.

My colleagues from Idaho and I have had a number of contacts and meeting with FAA on this issue--and still, there are few answers and lots of concerns about the proposed move of the only TRACON located in Idaho--Boise Airport--to collocate facilities at Salt Lake City.

There are lots of reasons I could share about why this move is of concern to my constituents and I: redundancy of TRACON facilities in the vast Intermountain West, dramatic growth in the region, air space flexibility for our biggest airport, which also serves as the home to Idaho's active Air National Guard as well as the National Interagency Fire Center, which serves the whole West.

But there are general concerns that I think speak to why it is important to support the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings:

Poor cost analysis--limited savings: The FAA has only been able to show negligible savings with the proposed collocation. After two meetings and repeated requests for detailed cost information--to include short-term expenses and savings, as well as long-term projected costs, etc.

On April 27, my delegation colleagues and I met with Administrator Blakey, at which time a rudimentary cost savings analysis was provided, claiming only $2.47 million in savings over 25 years--less than $100,000 per year.

More importantly, by the FAA's own admission, this ``analysis'' does not take into account all personnel costs, such as the need to hire additional controllers due to loss of flexible scheduling, dual training and other efficiencies currently used at the Boise tower, as well as other potential cost increases.

Therefore, the planned move will likely result in greater costs over that 25-year period.

Poor Planning: It appears that the FAA's ``alternatives analysis'' being conducted on TRACON collocation does not have a long-range plan or vision.

There is no plan on how TRACON facilities will be collocated and/or consolidated around the Northwest--let alone across the country--as they look to maximize use of their new STARS radar system. At least none has been communicated by the FAA when questions have been raised at meetings.

The process, as presented by FAA staff, appears to be based solely on those projects that are currently working on getting funding or those that have funding earmarked and are ready to go to construction.

In the case of Boise Airport, a much needed new air traffic control tower project has been delayed or benched after more than $16 million in earmarks have been worked on over the past 3 years by my Idaho colleagues and me.

This setback will negatively impact the economic development opportunities, security and safety concerns we have expressed to the House and Senate Appropriators in support of funding for this project.

Colleagues, we aren't talking about decreasing the size of government or lowering our costs here. Until FAA can articulate real cost savings and a national strategy for TRACON collocation and consolidation, we ought not go down this path any further. I urge your support for the Hastings/Wexler/Shaw/Foley Amendment.

Military Division,

State of Idaho,

Boise, ID, January 27, 2006.

Hon. Larry E. Craig,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Craig: Thank you for all your efforts on

behalf of the Idaho National Guard. I know you are aware of a

recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposal to

remote the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) at Boise

Air Terminal to Salt Lake International. I would like to

voice the Idaho National Guard's strong objection to this

proposal.

Aircrews from the Air and Army National Guard operate here

on a daily basis and fly thousands of sorties each year. They

are experienced at getting into and out of the airport

traffic area. Controllers also gain a familiarity with an

area and become extremely adept at controlling traffic within

that area. The familiarity controllers have of our local area

and their knowledge of our local weather phenomena allows

them to provide expedited services that will not be feasible

with a controller located in Salt Lake. I know of many

occasions when their knowledge of the area and its weather

patterns has resulted in the safe recovery of our guard

airplanes and helicopters as well aircraft from Mountain Home

AFB. I am also concerned that this proposed change may

restrict our use of the short field approach and landing

strip and that its use may be denied when other aircraft are

operating on the main runways, significantly limiting our

training opportunities. I am doubtful controllers located at

Salt Lake will ever gain the familiarity that would allow

them to provide the same exceptional service we currently

enjoy.

Sir, of utmost concern to me is the margin of safety that

will not be possible with a controller in Salt Lake. Whether

the separation is between participating traffic and our C-

130's operating on the short field, fire fighting aircraft

operations or our helicopter operations, we enjoy a

relationship with the TRACON that allows us to operate our

military aircraft with civilian traffic simultaneously in a

safe, expeditious environment. We cannot accept anything

less.

Finally, thanks to your great efforts, Boise will complete

a new control tower within the next few years. This great

addition to the airport combined with the National Guard's

efforts to relocate its munitions storage area will allow for

a significant growth opportunity at the airport. Attracting

major flying operations in the future will depend on the

ability of those aircraft to smoothly transition into and out

of the airport. To remote the TRACON to Salt Lake will in all

likelihood slow down the traffic flow, thus increasing

operating costs and making Boise a less attractive location

in which to operate.

Thank you for your continued support of the National Guard

and the Boise Air Terminal. If I can be of any further

assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Lawrence F. Lafrenz,

Major General,

Commanding General.