Floor Statements

Mr. President, the National Association of Wheat Growers announced their annual awards in February, and I am proud to report that a member of my staff was one of only five Senate staff members recognized for ``superior action in support of the goals and policies of the wheat industry.''

Staci Lancaster serves as my senior policy advisor with responsibilities in agriculture, forestry, trade and immigration issues, and as my staff director of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization. Staci provides me with meticulous and well-researched information, not only on the wheat industry, but in all legislative areas for which she bears responsibility.

I have great respect for her intelligence and analytical abilities and trust her guidance and direction on these issues which are so critical to Idaho. She is a tremendous asset to me and my staff and I congratulate her on this esteemed award.

Madam President, I yield off of our time 2 minutes to the Senator from Iowa to respond.

Before I do that, however, I understand that there is an order in place that the next amendment will be the Conrad amendment, followed by the Byrd amendment. We would like to ask unanimous consent to reverse that order, so that following the Snowe-Wyden amendment, we would move to the Byrd amendment next, rather than the Conrad amendment. So I ask unanimous consent for that change in the order of the amendment process.

I yield the time we have in opposition on this amendment to the Senator from Iowa.

I yield the Senator 2 minutes.

Madam President, I wish to take a couple of moments to do a little housekeeping business and then we can be set up for the vote while we wait on Senator Lautenberg.

First, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of Senator Gregg, Senator Conrad, and Senator Byrd to withdraw the Byrd amendment No. 3062, reserving the right of the Senator from West Virginia or his designee to offer an amendment in relation to amendment No. 3062 prior to final action on this resolution.

Madam President, secondly, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 o'clock today the Senate proceed to the votes in relation to the following amendments: Senator Stabenow, amendment No. 3056; Senator McConnell, No. 3061; Senator Menendez, No. 3054; Senator Chambliss, No. 3018; Senator Grassley, No. 3073; Senator Nelson, No. 3009; the Snowe- Wyden amendment, No. 3004; the Byrd amendment, No. 3086; and Senator Santorum, No. 3015.

That is the number I have.

Yes.

Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman in a colloquy.

I wish to express my appreciation for your efforts to put together a well-crafted fiscal year 2007 budget resolution that balances the

need for critical Government programs while taking a strong stand against our budget deficit.

As the committee works to address these critical needs, one area of the administration's request in particular needs special mention--the proposal to reduce funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, CWSRF, and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, DWSRF. Although the administration's budget submission makes a number of difficult choices, the recommendation to reduce funding to the CWSRF and the DWSRF represents a tremendous hardship for communities throughout the country.

Recent studies show that our Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure needs severely exceed the availability of resources at the local and State level to meet them. So many towns and cities across our country have exhausted their abilities to raise utility rates and issue bonds to pay for needed improvements. At the same time, increasing Federal water quality and drinking water standards force utility managers to upgrade systems or fall into noncompliance.

No community or customer wants to be served by a failing water or wastewater facility, but the Federal Government's commitment to addressing these regulatory mandates must be mated with its assistance. Without this commitment, communities can be left with nowhere to turn for help. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2002 that the United States has between $132 billion and $388 billion in clean water infrastructure needs alone over the next 20 years and the spending gap over that time will reach $70 to 360 billion. Similar figures affect the Nation's drinking water infrastructure.

Idaho, a small State by population and infrastructure needs, still only receives about $15 million annually, but its aggregate water and wastewater needs over the next 20 years will approach $1 billion by some estimates. For instance, the rural city of Castleford, ID, has become out of compliance with the EPA's arsenic standard for drinking water. In order to conform with the rule, the town, with a population of less than 200, will have to expend more than its entire annual operating budget to update the water infrastructure system.

The principal means for assisting utilities are the SRFs, which provide a loan pool for State agencies to work with distressed communities. The SRF assistance help finance infrastructure projects at the local level, and those communities in turn repay those loans so that the State might aid other communities in need.

That is why I believe it is so problematic to see a continuing decline in funding for the CWSRF and DWSRF. As recently as 2 years ago, funding was $1.35 billion and $850 million, respectively. Unfortunately, budget pressure has forced the CWSRF down to $900 million in the current fiscal year, and the President has proposed to reduce that to $688 million for the next year. While the DWSRF is proposed at only an $8 million reduction, a fateful and disturbing trend is developing.

As the past chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, I led efforts in two successive Congresses to update and increase the authorization for the CWSRF and DWSRF. Although those legislative initiatives never made it to the Senate floor, I remain committed to helping communities in Idaho and throughout the country address their water and wastewater needs.

During the debate on this budget resolution in the Budget Committee, an amendment was offered to condemn the President's call for reductions in those important accounts. I opposed that amendment because I want to focus effort where it counts, by working with my distinguished chairman and the Appropriations Committee to restore funding for the two SRFs to the best of our abilities.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that you join me in working through the balance of the budget resolution process, as well as during your service on the Appropriations Committee, to help restore these vital funds.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. President, today is a significant day in the agriculture industry in southeast Idaho. Effective and judicious water management is critical to communities in Idaho. Allocation of this scarce resource, particularly in the extended drought over much of the last decade, requires a vision of the future, application of valuable experience and lessons learned in the past, and an appreciation of the wide spectrum of water users. Today, Ron Carlson, Snake River Watermaster of District No. 1, is retiring after over 30 years of service to southeast Idaho.

Ron revolutionized irrigated agriculture in Idaho, bringing it into the 20th century with the introduction of computerized accounting and data collection in 1978 and the creation of the Water Bank, a formal water renting process. Ron ushered in technological advances into irrigated agriculture that gave water administrators the capability to create a model of river flows and reservoir capacity that compares baselines of yearly conditions. This system allowed for unprecedented river management and water supply projections for the Snake River system in Idaho. Ron's extensive knowledge and wisdom has helped maintain a critical balance between the multiple demands on this system by all legitimate

water users, from tribes to the State to local entities.

Ron not only has dedicated his life to managing critical natural resources in southeast Idaho, he has also carried on the tradition of his parents in reaching out caring arms to disadvantaged youth. It is this calling that he intends to pursue in retirement, managing the Pearl House Project in Idaho Falls, a full-service residential youth center for children in crisis. I am certain that his vast management knowledge gained from years as watermaster will serve him well in this endeavor. I congratulate Ron and his family on his retirement and wish him well. Idaho's agriculture community's loss is the youth of southeastern Idaho's gain.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize two outstanding young Idahoans who are here this week, getting a little taste of what it is like to work in and around the U.S. Senate. In the top 1 percent of Idaho students, Kortnee Hurless and Tenaya Pina, both from Camas County High School, were selected to participate in the U.S. Senate Youth Program this week. Kortnee and Tenaya have been able to attend policy addresses by Members of this body as well as Cabinet members, officials from the Department of Defense, directors of various Federal agencies, and will meet with a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Kortnee and Tenaya were selected for this program because they have demonstrated superior achievement and leadership at school and in their community. Idaho is very proud of these young women. Vision, purpose, commitment to challenging goals such as Tenaya and Kortnee have shown do not typically remain hidden in the background. I wouldn't be surprised to hear their names in leadership roles in the not too distant future. Past graduates of this 44-year program include my colleague, the distinguished Senator Susan Collins from Maine, Presidential advisers, and former Lieutenant Governor of Idaho, David LeRoy. Tenaya and Courtney carry on a fine tradition of Idaho's involvement in the leadership of our country at the high school level. I congratulate them on this tremendous achievement. They are shining examples of the abilities and promise of Idaho's youth.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, for the first time in many years, Idaho taxpayers and, congressional staff will face the season without a very special friend in the business. Merry Trudeau, local taxpayer advocate with the Internal Revenue Service, is retiring after 30 years of lending a compassionate ear and helpful hand to many Idaho taxpayers. Over three decades of working in different sections of the IRS but most notably as a taxpayer advocate, Merry distinguished herself on both sides of the phone. She helped many Idahoans through the mazes of Federal tax law and working out resolutions to different problems, and she was the person who fellow employees reached out to when they needed guidance. She is perhaps best known for her generosity and willingness to volunteer her time and resources with the Combined Federal Campaign and helping needy families and children enjoy beautiful and plentiful Christmases.

Mr. President, this past December Idaho unexpectedly lost a generous and gracious man who will be missed terribly by all who had the pleasure of experiencing his welcoming spirit and warm heart.

Maurice was a sheep rancher from Three Creek, ID, who was known for his ready smile, charm and unequivocal love for his wife, family and the land on which he made his livelihood. I had the distinct privilege of working with him a number of times on collaborative land management endeavors and remember well that he made an extraordinary effort to get those who thought themselves at odds to find common ground and work together. He saw the wisdom and value of this approach and was respected for it.

With his sheep dog keeping a sharp eye from the back of his truck, Maurice diligently cared for his land and was known to carry candy with him to share in case he met someone on one of the remote roads near his ranch. He and his wife, Marlene, would put together a dinner party for dozens at the drop of a hat, welcoming strangers with open arms. He was especially close to his fellow Basque friends.

Maurice had a soul of generosity, gentleness, and wisdom and knew the value of hard, honest work. This legacy is his gift and it lives on in his family and friends. My prayers are with them during this difficult time.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to formally convey title a portion of the American Falls Reservoir District from the Bureau of Reclamation to the National Park Service. The Minidoka Internment National Monument Draft General Management Plan and Environment Impact Statement proposes the transfer of these two publicly owned parcels of land, which are both within and adjacent to the existing 73-acre NPS boundary, and have been identified as important for inclusion as part of the monument. The sites were both within the original 33,000-acre Minidoka Relocation Center that was operated by the War Relocation Authority, where approximately 13,500 Japanese and Japanese Americans were held from 1942 through 1945.

The smaller 2.31-acre parcel is located in the center of the monument in the old warehouse area and includes three historical buildings and other important cultural features. The Draft General Management Plan proposes to use this site for visitor services, including a Visitor Contact Station within an original warehouse to greet visitors and provide orientation for the monument. The other, a 7.87-acre parcel, is on the east end of the monument and was undeveloped during WWII. The NPS proposes to use this area for special events and to provide a site for the development of a memorial for the Issei, first-generation Japanese immigrants. These two publicly-owned properties are critical for long-term development, visitor services, and protection and preservation of historical structures and features at Minidoka Internment National Monument.

I would like to add that this legislation was developed with and is strongly supported by both the agencies involved and the local communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this small land transfer that we might move a step closer toward properly memorializing an important, but often forgotten, chapter of our Nation's history.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of myself, Senator Burns of Montana and my Colleague Senator Craig that would include the States of Idaho and Montana as affected areas under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA.

Since our goals of giving affected citizens in our States the opportunity to receive compensation under RECA, and the challenges faced by our constituents are the same, it is appropriate to combine our efforts toward rectifying the problem.

Nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s released radiation into the atmosphere that settled in States far away from the original test site. Certain elements of this radiation such as the radioactive isotope Iodine-131 settled in States such as Idaho and Montana and found their way into the milk supply. After time, in some cases 25 to 50 years after the fact, this contamination manifested itself as various forms of cancer, leukemia and other illnesses, particularly thyroid cancer. Those affected in this way are often referred to as ``downwinders,'' to denote their location downwind from the fallout.

In 1990, Congress recognized the need for the Federal Government to make amends for the harm caused to innocent citizens by nuclear testing and the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was passed into law. Unfortunately, the science at the time did not recognize that radioactive fallout did not restrict itself by State lines.

This was highlighted in 1999, when a group of Senators, led by Senator Hatch, amended the law to include additional counties in Arizona. During debate on this legislation, Senator Hatch said, ``Our current state of scientific knowledge allows us to pinpoint with more accuracy which diseases are reasonably believed to be related to radiation exposure, and that is what necessitated the legislation we are considering today.'' Since that time, even greater advances in science have been made in the area of radiation exposure.

When the RECA disparity was first brought to my attention by the Idaho downwinders, I met with them to discuss ways to help them. The National Academy of Sciences staff came to Idaho in 2004 to hear testimony from those affected and ensure that their concerns and comments were included in the process.

Their voices were heard; the NAS report released in April of 2005 recognized that, among the 25 counties with the highest per capita dosage of radiation, 20 of those counties are in Idaho and Montana. In fact, Idaho is home to four of the top five counties in this regard. The report also stated that, ``To be equitable, any compensation program needs to be based on scientific criteria and similar cases must be treated alike. The current geographic limitations are not based on the latest science.'' Understanding these facts, it is of prime importance that we rectify the problem quickly.

The NAS report recognizes that the RECA program needs to be updated and that affected Idahoans and Montanans deserve equal treatment with those in other States. The report makes several specific recommendations, chief among them that Congress should establish a new process for reviewing individual claims, based on probability of causation, or ``assigned share,'' a method which is used in the courts and for other radiation compensation programs. I am currently working with my colleagues to legislatively address the suggestions made by the NAS report and work out a long-term solution for the challenges currently posed by RECA.

We all recognize that this problem requires a two-part solution-- expanding the current RECA program to include those left behind while at the same time working on the long-term fixes recommended by the NAS. These efforts must happen simultaneously and I am pleased that my colleagues are partnering with me on this course.

Tragically, for some, it is already too late. A long-time advocate for the downwinders, and personal friend, Sheri Garmon, passed away from cancer this summer. Others preceded her and some are sick right now. There are still a number of those affected who are still waiting for the Government to do the right thing and make them eligible for compensation for their injuries. The facts are in and the science shows that they should not have to wait any longer for their rightful opportunity to seek appropriate redress. Let's fix this while we still have some of those who are sick because of Government actions with us.

I would exhort my colleagues to join with me and Senators Burns and Craig to take up this legislation we have introduced today and bring needed fairness to those in Idaho and Montana and extend them eligibility under the current Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to formally convey title a portion of the American Falls Reservoir District from the Bureau of Reclamation to the National Park Service. The Minidoka Internment National Monument Draft General Management Plan and Environment Impact Statement proposes the transfer of these two publicly owned parcels of land, which are both within and adjacent to the existing 73-acre NPS boundary, and have been identified as important for inclusion as part of the monument. The sites were both within the original 33,000-acre Minidoka Relocation Center that was operated by the War Relocation Authority, where approximately 13,500 Japanese and Japanese Americans were held from 1942 through 1945.

The smaller 2.31-acre parcel is located in the center of the monument in the old warehouse area and includes three historical buildings and other important cultural features. The Draft General Management Plan proposes to use this site for visitor services, including a Visitor Contact Station within an original warehouse to greet visitors and provide orientation for the monument. The other, a 7.87-acre parcel, is on the east end of the monument and was undeveloped during WWII. The NPS proposes to use this area for special events and to provide a site for the development of a memorial for the Issei, first-generation Japanese immigrants. These two publicly-owned properties are critical for long-term development, visitor services, and protection and preservation of historical structures and features at Minidoka Internment National Monument.

I would like to add that this legislation was developed with and is strongly supported by both the agencies involved and the local communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this small land transfer that we might move a step closer toward properly memorializing an important, but often forgotten, chapter of our Nation's history.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of myself, Senator Burns of Montana and my Colleague Senator Craig that would include the States of Idaho and Montana as affected areas under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA.

Since our goals of giving affected citizens in our States the opportunity to receive compensation under RECA, and the challenges faced by our constituents are the same, it is appropriate to combine our efforts toward rectifying the problem.

Nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s released radiation into the atmosphere that settled in States far away from the original test site. Certain elements of this radiation such as the radioactive isotope Iodine-131 settled in States such as Idaho and Montana and found their way into the milk supply. After time, in some cases 25 to 50 years after the fact, this contamination manifested itself as various forms of cancer, leukemia and other illnesses, particularly thyroid cancer. Those affected in this way are often referred to as ``downwinders,'' to denote their location downwind from the fallout.

In 1990, Congress recognized the need for the Federal Government to make amends for the harm caused to innocent citizens by nuclear testing and the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was passed into law. Unfortunately, the science at the time did not recognize that radioactive fallout did not restrict itself by State lines.

This was highlighted in 1999, when a group of Senators, led by Senator Hatch, amended the law to include additional counties in Arizona. During debate on this legislation, Senator Hatch said, ``Our current state of scientific knowledge allows us to pinpoint with more accuracy which diseases are reasonably believed to be related to radiation exposure, and that is what necessitated the legislation we are considering today.'' Since that time, even greater advances in science have been made in the area of radiation exposure.

When the RECA disparity was first brought to my attention by the Idaho downwinders, I met with them to discuss ways to help them. The National Academy of Sciences staff came to Idaho in 2004 to hear testimony from those affected and ensure that their concerns and comments were included in the process.

Their voices were heard; the NAS report released in April of 2005 recognized that, among the 25 counties with the highest per capita dosage of radiation, 20 of those counties are in Idaho and Montana. In fact, Idaho is home to four of the top five counties in this regard. The report also stated that, ``To be equitable, any compensation program needs to be based on scientific criteria and similar cases must be treated alike. The current geographic limitations are not based on the latest science.'' Understanding these facts, it is of prime importance that we rectify the problem quickly.

The NAS report recognizes that the RECA program needs to be updated and that affected Idahoans and Montanans deserve equal treatment with those in other States. The report makes several specific recommendations, chief among them that Congress should establish a new process for reviewing individual claims, based on probability of causation, or ``assigned share,'' a method which is used in the courts and for other radiation compensation programs. I am currently working with my colleagues to legislatively address the suggestions made by the NAS report and work out a long-term solution for the challenges currently posed by RECA.

We all recognize that this problem requires a two-part solution-- expanding the current RECA program to include those left behind while at the same time working on the long-term fixes recommended by the NAS. These efforts must happen simultaneously and I am pleased that my colleagues are partnering with me on this course.

Tragically, for some, it is already too late. A long-time advocate for the downwinders, and personal friend, Sheri Garmon, passed away from cancer this summer. Others preceded her and some are sick right now. There are still a number of those affected who are still waiting for the Government to do the right thing and make them eligible for compensation for their injuries. The facts are in and the science shows that they should not have to wait any longer for their rightful opportunity to seek appropriate redress. Let's fix this while we still have some of those who are sick because of Government actions with us.

I would exhort my colleagues to join with me and Senators Burns and Craig to take up this legislation we have introduced today and bring needed fairness to those in Idaho and Montana and extend them eligibility under the current Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Crapo and Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 2110 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, keeping a community connected and informed is one of the most important functions of a local paper. In Cottonwood, ID, this job has been attended to with care and expertise by Pat Wherry and her late husband Bob for the past 30 years. In 1975, Pat and Bob took the helm of the Cottonwood Chronicle and Bob, until his death, and Pat have been serving the community of Cottonwood through their hard work and diligence ever since. Their two sons are involved in the businesses as well, each currently holding positions as editors, one at the Chronicle and the other at the Lewis County Herald. Bob passed away in 1996, but Pat has stayed with the paper, working hours that as many involved in small papers know far exceed 40 hours per week.

The Cottonwood Chronicle is one of the oldest papers in Idaho, first wearing the banner of the ``Cottonwood Reporter'' in 1892. It has been the Cottonwood Chronicle since around 1910. At one time, the Wherry family also owned both the Valley News in Meridian and the Lewis County Herald in Nez Perce, but later sold the Valley News. They have devoted their time, resources and energy to keeping the people in these communities educated and involved. Editors of small papers especially serve many functions--they are the source of news and schedules of events. They are the keepers of community opinion and concerns. Pat especially is a strong and proud advocate for Cottonwood and I always appreciate her information she shares about the exciting things happening in this growing community. I congratulate Pat and her sons Greg and Steve and wish them well as they continue in their good work.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Collaboration for the Recovery of the Endangered Species Act, or CRESA. Over the years, this body and the Nation as a whole have fiercely debated the merits of the Endangered Species Act. But there is one fundamental concept on which we all agree--saving endangered species is essential.

We have 30 years of experience with the laws that govern species management. We know the original intent. We have witnessed the strengths of the Act and its capability and commitment to save species from extinction. We know about the endless litigation. We have seen disappointingly few species recover. We have lost farms and valuable ranch land, putting families out of business. Ironically, the biggest losers are the very species we are attempting to recover.

However, we have also seen amazing things happen in Idaho, in Arkansas, Wyoming and in California to name just a few. We have seen landowners, conservationists, local, state and Federal agencies come together, figure out a workable plan and set about to do the business of recovering species. These plans are tried and true--they work, and they need to have the strength of the law behind them.

Some ask why the Endangered Species Act needs to be improved. The answer is short--we must apply lessons learned, the most important one being that collaboration works. Collabortion allows the process to move forward. By its very nature, litigation sets one group against another--making them rivals, not partners. Too often we work against each other, rather than with and for each other. We need to encourage what works in order to create the results we all want.

The next logical step and what is needed now is a way to facilitate the

ESA in its methods of promoting ongoing species recovery--something that requires collaboration by all--from the marble halls of Federal agencies here in Washington to rangeland in rural Idaho and forests of Arkansas. So, too, in every other state. This is not just a Western problem; the. entire country is searching for effective ways to accomplish the goals of the ESA. The good news is that many of these valuable partnerships are in place, functioning very effectively all across our country.

Take one example from my home State of Idaho, that of sage grouse recovery. Landowners and conservation groups came together to establish strong conservation programs that respected landowners' rights and satisfied environmental concerns. This collaborative, cooperative effort, utilizing the wisdom of those who live and work on the land, the expertise of specialists and those with knowledge of government rules and regulations, has been a magnificently successful alternative to the perils and dead end road of litigation.

Collaboration means more voices. More voices mean more solutions. More solutions mean more options. More options create the best solutions and also bring ownership by all members of the group. Applying this method to species recovery and the ESA means that more people will become involved and concerned about recovering species, especially those who bear the direct burden of compliance with the law. More voices bleans greater innovation in the field of species recovery. Collaboration decreases conflict, and conflict, as we in this body know all too well, usually puts us nowhere.

Collaboration works. Our bill codifies these proven solutions to protect them from the dead-end often found in litigation.

Why do we need to make a change? It is time to build on lessons learned with regard to species recovery, and our bill will put these lessons into concrete, effective action.

CRESA accomplishes the goal of species recovery by building on the successes of the ESA and by applying valuable lessons learned over the past 3 decades.

It promotes species restoration and recovery by rewarding landowners for their recovery efforts. Private property rights are guaranteed to us by our laws. Cost burdens can be onerous, and landowners should be rewarded for recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act.

Laws must first positively reinforce public values and penalize only as a last resort. We have had it backward for many years and littered in the wake of this travesty are lost family farms and ranches. The old adage about the danger of burning bridges is relevant here: much of the action driven by existing ESA rules and regulations burns bridges-- bridges that left intact could bring species across the chasm of extinction to recovery.

CRESA also promotes flexibility. One lesson learned in the course of creating and implementing the successful species management partnerships that I have mentioned today is that it is vital to work at the point of recovery--on the ground, as we tend to say. Working at the point of recovery realizes the benefits of fine-tuning individual solutions to meet specific challenges, but with the greater and broader goal of species recovery. This is flexibility and it cannot be achieved 2,500 miles from where a species needs restoration. It is on the ground that our resources should be applied.

CRESA promotes a freedom of process which encourages flexibility. I cannot emphasize how many times I have spoken with Idaho farmers and ranchers who tell me that, ``that solution might work in the halls of Congress--it doesn't work here on my land.'' It is ludicrous to believe that one-size-fits-all in the arena of species recovery. No two species, topography, environment or human natural resource use are the same, not even in the same county. There are multiple considerations that must be addressed in a cooperative, collaborative manner in order to achieve any kind of effectiveness.

Private property rights are not the enemy of conservation. Rather, the law can encourage landowners to involve themselves in the process. Landowners have a great deal of respect for species. Many of them are the first ones to tell you about the bear they caught sight of in the dim light of evening or the early morning grazing of deer in their fields. If landowners, especially ranchers and farmers, didn't like animals, they likely wouldn't do what they do. It doesn't make sense.

In the same way, environmentalists don't hate people. They, too, live on land somewhere, and many use the products that large landowners produce for our country: meat, wood, leather, and mining products, to name a few. Put in that perspective, it is obvious that working against one another is futile and counterproductive for people and species. We have innovative solutions that work for both species and people, and we need laws that facilitate this critical flexibility.

It is time to come together, sit down at the table and get down to the real matter at hand. We have to, in the words of a good friend who knows this issue well, ``concentrate on problem-solving rather than ideologies.'' While there are great ideological divides on this issue, the ideas for how to solve conservation challenges are not polarized. There is a consensus that there are conservation solutions that can benefit people and species.

We have a tremendous responsibility with regard to our valuable natural resources. Growing up and living in Idaho, I cannot fully convey to those who have never seen it the absolute wonder of my State's wildlife and land. It is farfetched to imagine that I or anyone else who lives and works this breathtaking setting would want to destroy it. Clearly, this is not just an Idaho issue. There are endangered species and wonderful lands in all 50 States and landowners nationwide are instrumental to solving the challenge of species recovery and restoration.

The Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act facilitates this tried and true method of species recovery--species recovery not just for today or next week or next year, but for our children and grandchildren. I look forward to this bipartisan, progressive approach to species recovery and encourage all of my colleagues to give very careful consideration to this important legislation that we are introducing today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Collaboration for the Recovery of the Endangered Species Act, or CRESA. Over the years, this body and the Nation as a whole have fiercely debated the merits of the Endangered Species Act. But there is one fundamental concept on which we all agree--saving endangered species is essential.

We have 30 years of experience with the laws that govern species management. We know the original intent. We have witnessed the strengths of the Act and its capability and commitment to save species from extinction. We know about the endless litigation. We have seen disappointingly few species recover. We have lost farms and valuable ranch land, putting families out of business. Ironically, the biggest losers are the very species we are attempting to recover.

However, we have also seen amazing things happen in Idaho, in Arkansas, Wyoming and in California to name just a few. We have seen landowners, conservationists, local, state and Federal agencies come together, figure out a workable plan and set about to do the business of recovering species. These plans are tried and true--they work, and they need to have the strength of the law behind them.

Some ask why the Endangered Species Act needs to be improved. The answer is short--we must apply lessons learned, the most important one being that collaboration works. Collabortion allows the process to move forward. By its very nature, litigation sets one group against another--making them rivals, not partners. Too often we work against each other, rather than with and for each other. We need to encourage what works in order to create the results we all want.

The next logical step and what is needed now is a way to facilitate the

ESA in its methods of promoting ongoing species recovery--something that requires collaboration by all--from the marble halls of Federal agencies here in Washington to rangeland in rural Idaho and forests of Arkansas. So, too, in every other state. This is not just a Western problem; the. entire country is searching for effective ways to accomplish the goals of the ESA. The good news is that many of these valuable partnerships are in place, functioning very effectively all across our country.

Take one example from my home State of Idaho, that of sage grouse recovery. Landowners and conservation groups came together to establish strong conservation programs that respected landowners' rights and satisfied environmental concerns. This collaborative, cooperative effort, utilizing the wisdom of those who live and work on the land, the expertise of specialists and those with knowledge of government rules and regulations, has been a magnificently successful alternative to the perils and dead end road of litigation.

Collaboration means more voices. More voices mean more solutions. More solutions mean more options. More options create the best solutions and also bring ownership by all members of the group. Applying this method to species recovery and the ESA means that more people will become involved and concerned about recovering species, especially those who bear the direct burden of compliance with the law. More voices bleans greater innovation in the field of species recovery. Collaboration decreases conflict, and conflict, as we in this body know all too well, usually puts us nowhere.

Collaboration works. Our bill codifies these proven solutions to protect them from the dead-end often found in litigation.

Why do we need to make a change? It is time to build on lessons learned with regard to species recovery, and our bill will put these lessons into concrete, effective action.

CRESA accomplishes the goal of species recovery by building on the successes of the ESA and by applying valuable lessons learned over the past 3 decades.

It promotes species restoration and recovery by rewarding landowners for their recovery efforts. Private property rights are guaranteed to us by our laws. Cost burdens can be onerous, and landowners should be rewarded for recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act.

Laws must first positively reinforce public values and penalize only as a last resort. We have had it backward for many years and littered in the wake of this travesty are lost family farms and ranches. The old adage about the danger of burning bridges is relevant here: much of the action driven by existing ESA rules and regulations burns bridges-- bridges that left intact could bring species across the chasm of extinction to recovery.

CRESA also promotes flexibility. One lesson learned in the course of creating and implementing the successful species management partnerships that I have mentioned today is that it is vital to work at the point of recovery--on the ground, as we tend to say. Working at the point of recovery realizes the benefits of fine-tuning individual solutions to meet specific challenges, but with the greater and broader goal of species recovery. This is flexibility and it cannot be achieved 2,500 miles from where a species needs restoration. It is on the ground that our resources should be applied.

CRESA promotes a freedom of process which encourages flexibility. I cannot emphasize how many times I have spoken with Idaho farmers and ranchers who tell me that, ``that solution might work in the halls of Congress--it doesn't work here on my land.'' It is ludicrous to believe that one-size-fits-all in the arena of species recovery. No two species, topography, environment or human natural resource use are the same, not even in the same county. There are multiple considerations that must be addressed in a cooperative, collaborative manner in order to achieve any kind of effectiveness.

Private property rights are not the enemy of conservation. Rather, the law can encourage landowners to involve themselves in the process. Landowners have a great deal of respect for species. Many of them are the first ones to tell you about the bear they caught sight of in the dim light of evening or the early morning grazing of deer in their fields. If landowners, especially ranchers and farmers, didn't like animals, they likely wouldn't do what they do. It doesn't make sense.

In the same way, environmentalists don't hate people. They, too, live on land somewhere, and many use the products that large landowners produce for our country: meat, wood, leather, and mining products, to name a few. Put in that perspective, it is obvious that working against one another is futile and counterproductive for people and species. We have innovative solutions that work for both species and people, and we need laws that facilitate this critical flexibility.

It is time to come together, sit down at the table and get down to the real matter at hand. We have to, in the words of a good friend who knows this issue well, ``concentrate on problem-solving rather than ideologies.'' While there are great ideological divides on this issue, the ideas for how to solve conservation challenges are not polarized. There is a consensus that there are conservation solutions that can benefit people and species.

We have a tremendous responsibility with regard to our valuable natural resources. Growing up and living in Idaho, I cannot fully convey to those who have never seen it the absolute wonder of my State's wildlife and land. It is farfetched to imagine that I or anyone else who lives and works this breathtaking setting would want to destroy it. Clearly, this is not just an Idaho issue. There are endangered species and wonderful lands in all 50 States and landowners nationwide are instrumental to solving the challenge of species recovery and restoration.

The Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act facilitates this tried and true method of species recovery--species recovery not just for today or next week or next year, but for our children and grandchildren. I look forward to this bipartisan, progressive approach to species recovery and encourage all of my colleagues to give very careful consideration to this important legislation that we are introducing today.

I yield the floor.