Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the purpose of introducing this bill today is to start the process of granting the Burns-Paiute Tribe of Eastern Oregon land in trust. This is an opportunity to allow this tribe to become self-sufficient by producing a viable gaming operation. The project would be designed to have a minimal component tied to gaming with a much larger share of the development related to entertainment and tourism. One of the goals would be to develop activities and bring in components that enhance the overall Treasure Valley and southwest Idaho economic environment. The goal is to create new reasons for people to travel to the region and to work with local businesses to generate ongoing supply and support ongoing business opportunities. This legislation, should it be implemented, will create new jobs and provide an economic boost for eastern Oregon and western Idaho.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the purpose of introducing this bill today is to start the process of granting the Burns-Paiute Tribe of Eastern Oregon land in trust. This is an opportunity to allow this tribe to become self-sufficient by producing a viable gaming operation. The project would be designed to have a minimal component tied to gaming with a much larger share of the development related to entertainment and tourism. One of the goals would be to develop activities and bring in components that enhance the overall Treasure Valley and southwest Idaho economic environment. The goal is to create new reasons for people to travel to the region and to work with local businesses to generate ongoing supply and support ongoing business opportunities. This legislation, should it be implemented, will create new jobs and provide an economic boost for eastern Oregon and western Idaho.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon with tremendously mixed emotions to visit with all of you and with our country about Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Many have said much about this great man. I will not say a great deal, but I will try to express it in an emotional way for a fellow I have known of for 28 years and have known personally for 18 years. So let me visit for a moment as a westerner, as somebody from a public lands State, where the Federal Government is, in many instances, dominant over the lives of small communities and citizens in a way that most of you from nonpublic lands States wouldn't ever appreciate. I know that passion. I, every day of my life, in working with Ted Stevens, sensed that passion in a way that if you are not from a public lands State, if you do not have an agency or a bureaucrat dictating to you about the lives of your citizens and your people, you would simply never understand. But Ted grasped that early on and without question has been the champion of his State and their citizens in a way that no other Senator has been. I have so tremendously respected that. I have been in and out of Alaska several times in my tenure as a Senator or as a Congressman. I will close with an expression given to me by a cab driver in Anchorage that says more to me about this man than anything I could possibly say myself. I was en route from downtown Anchorage, Ted, to the Ted Stevens International Airport. We rounded the curve and pulled up. As I exited the cab, I looked up, and there was your name. I said: Oh, my, Ted's got an airport. That is neat. And the cab driver said, ``Do you know Uncle Ted?'' I said, ``Well, yes, I do. I work for him in the Senate.'' He said ``You do?'' I said ``Sure do.'' He said, ``Give him my best when you get back to Washington because, as an Alaskan, I know of no other person who has done more for my State than Uncle Ted.'' Well, Ted Stevens now knows why I call him Uncle Ted more often than not. I view that as a much more affectionate term than Senator Stevens because, as I was flying out of that great State and headed down the coast, looking off to my left at those phenomenal mountains and expanses of wilderness and public lands and resources, I thought: If any one person deserves the credit for taking this phenomenal region of our world and providing reasonable points of life for so many of its citizens, it is Uncle Ted Stevens. Uncle Ted, I am going to miss you. This Senate will miss you. Your State will miss you. And America will miss you. Thank you for your service.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before the senior retiring Senator from the State of Colorado leaves, let me thank him for his gracious comments. We have been a very good team and have partnered on a lot of issues over the years because we have such common interests in mind. Our States are very similar in so many ways. The State of Colorado happens to have the hydrocarbons we do not have, when it comes to gas and oil. But at the same time, agriculture, water and timber, tourism, and all the great things many people attribute to the West are embodied in the State of Colorado and certainly in the State of Idaho. But a very special thanks to Senator Allard for your fine comments. The work the Senator has done on behalf of his State is precedent setting. I hope--I know--the Senator will be continually recognized for that. But let me also say the Senator and his wife Joan have become good friends of both my wife Suzanne and I. Those are the kinds of friendships that build partnerships in the Senate. I hope other Senators recognize the Senate works well when Senators are friends and partners. Now, we may have our disagreements along the way, and there may be some disagreements between Democrats and Republicans, but when the collegiality of the Senate leaves, the Senate no longer works or works as well as it should on behalf of our citizens. Certainly, the collegiality between the Craigs and the Allards has been longstanding and greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the next few minutes I wish to connect the dots. What am I saying? Well, I wish to take us from where this Senate was last night, when on a 74-to-25 vote it voted out one of the largest financial assistance packages in the history of the Nation-- 700-plus billion dollars--to try to stabilize the credit markets of our country and make sure that Main Street--whether it be in small-town Colorado or small-town Idaho--still have credit in its banks for its citizens and its small business people to conduct business and make payroll. We have, by a series of actions over the last decade, placed the American economy and the American consumer--the taxpayer--in peril. Last night was an effort to recognize that and to do something about it. Because of its size, and because of its early billing--that it was a ``Wall Street bailout''--I suspect your constituents and mine backed off and said: ``Whoa, wait a minute, government; wait a minute, politician, don't put the taxpayer at peril with this kind of effort.'' At the same time, you and I, and many of us here, were looking at all of the issues at hand, recognizing this was not a bailout for Wall Street. In fact, from its original concept to its evolution to the bill that was passed last night, it was a much different document-- safeguarding and protecting the taxpayer and trying to recognize the need of a growing credit crisis on Main Street USA. I think, and I hope, we have accomplished that. But how did this come to be? Well, there are a lot of fingers that can be pointed. We can point at the liberal lending policy and advocacy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and subprimes, and too much credit in the market, and the explosion of the housing industry--or at least the explosion of the bubble in the housing industry. But something else came along about the time all of those elements in our economy were coming together that I think was probably the tripwire that helped create the current situation. Let me connect the dot, the dot of too much credit, of subprime, of an economy that was maxed out, of a consumer who was maxed out. Let me connect the dot of the average consumer having to pay anywhere from $100 to $150 more a month on his energy bill at the gas pump. What happened in our economy as energy prices went through the roof and that spread out across our economy in food costs, in transportation costs, in the costs of everything we do because our economy is so intricately linked with energy and the availability of energy? You didn't hear anybody on the floor last night talk about energy. You did not hear anybody on the floor last night talk about the $4 gas or the $140-a- barrel oil that was true a few months ago, but it was there and it was lurking in the background. It had already hit our economy along the side of the head with a fatal blow. We have over the last several years tried to recognize that. When we left here in July for the August recess, Democrats and Republicans were at odds over energy. I was saying let's drill, let's produce, and the American consumer was awakening to this energy shock that our economy was having and they were saying the same thing; 65 to 70 percent of the American consumers were saying, What's wrong, politician? Why are you locking away the great resources of this country? In the name of the environment? In the name of no growth? In the name of good feelings? The bad feelings were at the pump. The bad feelings were in the pocketbook. Stay with me for a moment and think about this. Think about that consumer. He and she, working hard, maybe bringing home $45,000 or $50,000 a year amongst the two--mom and dad--they have their credit cards maxed out. They have maybe $5,000 on their credit cards and they are paying a couple of hundred dollars a month each month on that credit card and making their house payment and barely getting by and, all of a sudden, in the last year and a half or two, their energy bill goes through the roof and they are paying $150 to $200 a month, and they don't have it. Then the value they had in their house that they might have taken a second mortgage out on to bail them out, all of a sudden begins to disappear. That is an American family in crisis. That is an American family in crisis without question. That is the crisis we began to deal with last night. That, of course, was that $5,000 they had on their credit card that they were paying $200 a month on, the credit card company called them up and said we are going to pump it up to $400 a month, we are going to drop your credit line, and we are going to charge you more interest. That is what was happening, and it was brought on by practices in the economy over the last good number of years, and the energy crisis coming down on top. In the midst of all of this great debate about the economy, something happened at the end of September. Politicians who couldn't face the vote to deal with the issue of taking off the offshore oil moratorium let it expire. There were a few stories about ``offshore drilling moratoria expired.'' Even some of the cable news stations had charts up showing graphs--graphs I had used here on the floor--of areas that were now available offshore. Somehow there was a little story out there that possibly we were going to get back into the business of drilling and production and therefore bring down our risk as a nation and stop the huge flow of money going offshore and the consumer would be better off. I am here today to connect another dot and to suggest to the American consumer that is an illusion. The reason it is an illusion is because there are a few politicians around here saying when we get back next year, we can slip that moratorium back on. There are others saying good, it is off, it will stay off, and we can begin to work the process of getting the Department of the Interior, USGS, and others to do the surveys and environmental impact statements that will allow us to drill. Therein lies the question: To drill--when? Let me tell you how it works, because the day the moratoria came off, and they came off the last of September, if everything were to work right, it would be 7 to 8 years before any rig could go out there into the deep waters and begin to drill. That is normal process and time. If you look at the example of Alaska where there are offshore leases and the environmental impact statements have been done, guess what else happened. Along came the interest groups and they filed suits and they have extended that drilling time out another 3 or 4 years while the oil companies go through the courts and fight the battles of the environmental groups that do not want you there to begin with. America, please awaken. Do not think the energy crisis is over because we have turned the economy down, we have turned consumption down around the world and all of a sudden oil is now down to $92, $93, $94 a barrel. Because the very thing we hope for, and that is for the economy to come back and people to come back to work and homes to be built here and around the world, means that energy consumption will go back up against a relatively static supply market. The good news is we hopefully did the right things to bring the economy back. The bad news is we haven't done a darned thing to increase the supply of hydrocarbons in our market--except to run a few tickertapes or billboards that we let the moratorium expire on offshore oil. But we have not indemnified the companies, we have not done the right things it would take to bring drilling to the areas where the oil is. And there is oil out there--billions of barrels of oil. Every time the gulf, where there is a lot of deepwater drilling, gets hit by hurricane--whether it was Katrina or Ike recently, that knocked hundreds of platforms off their foundations out in the deepwater production area--there was no environmental problem because we are so good at doing what we do today. We insist that the best talent come, the best equipment come, and we have those kinds of environmental protections that deny us the ghosts of Santa Barbara of three decades ago. Yet there is still a large number of Americans wanting to deny us that. There is a great number of politicians who would love to run from the reality of getting this country back into the business of producing energy. We talk about it. We play the game. But I am here today to say we do not connect all of the dots and it is not going to be 2, 3, 4 years after the moratoria goes off. After you work all the systems and all the lawsuits through all the courts, you would be very lucky to get any field into production in the next 12 years. That is the way it is. That is the problem we have to deal with. That is the problem the new Congress will have to deal with and deal with it in a very real way. What are we talking about? The estimation of the domestic recoverable oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. In old geology, in old surveys that do not keep up with the modern techniques that we have today, where we are finding the truly deep oil out in the gulf, we know there are at least 30 billion barrels of oil. We believe in the undiscovered resource areas there could be as much as 85 or 100 billion barrels of oil. There are literally trillions of cubic feet of gas-- 200, 250, 350, 400, we are not sure, but we know this. When you take the old technology and you go out there with the new technologies and you apply it to the old geologies, you usually get two to three times more than you thought you were going to get. That is a fact and we know that today. Therefore, it is critically important that we get the rigs into the water, get the rigs out there, and begin to explore and develop; that is, if you do not want another runup in energy values and an energy crisis of the kind we have put our people through when this economy comes back--and it will come back, hopefully soon, but within the next couple of years. Congress's failure to act, Congress's willingness to march down the old path of no exploration, no drilling, no production, buy it from our enemies, the ``send our money offshore'' syndrome will plunge us back into another energy crisis. I say to those who might be listening today, connect the dots. One of those dots you will connect is with your politicians, with your policymakers. Insist that they do the right thing, and the right thing is to free this country up and get us back into the business of production. While the OCS moratorium has lifted, here is another little problem. A couple of years ago, with a political compromise here on the floor of the Senate, we took a little piece off the Florida coast, down off the Alabama coast, called lease sale 181. The reason we opened that was because it was very close to the infrastructure--meaning the pipes and the refinery areas. We know there is a lot of gas and oil there. We created special conditions. We even indemnified, or protected from lawsuits, some of the companies going in there. Those sales are let and those companies are headed there. We believe there could be several billion barrels of oil there. But, very quietly, in the language it also prohibits us from going on east toward the Florida coast where there are billions more barrels of oil that were once under the OCS moratorium but have special language and special protection and still have that special language and still have that special protection, even with the moratoria expiration being lifted this past week. That is another dirty little secret that nobody wants to talk about-- the Floridians most assuredly don't want to talk about--even though in Florida today they are saying drill it, go after it, get it, help us out; drop our energy bills, help our pocketbooks, help our family budget. Congress, do the right thing. Those are some of the challenges the new Congress will face. We have a staggering economy, we are in a major credit crunch, we have consumers who are maxed out in a lot of ways, but the one thing they grew so very angry about the last 6 months was that somebody was robbing them blind--or at least they thought they were--at the fuel pump. The reason we had an energy crisis was because we began to have a political crisis on the floor of this Senate years ago when we continually locked up our resources, all in the name of some worthy cause, denying the riches of our country and our land to the American people. As some know who have been listening or have been watching the floor for the last hour, I am not going to be here. I am retiring. I spent a lot of my years dealing with the very issue I am talking about now, all in the name of increased production, fighting unbelievable odds because of the beliefs many of our Members of Congress have about locking it up in the name of something. I would hope Congress got real and recognized the reality of the world we live in. Just as we live in a worldwide economic market, we also live in a worldwide energy market. The great tragedy of today has created, in part, the economic crisis we are in. While it was at the gas pump for the average citizen every day, at least when oil was $140 a barrel, we were sending upwards of $1.2 billion offshore to buy oil. America cannot continue to do that and remain a wealthy and prosperous nation. We simply are draining our Treasury dry. Yet we have oil all around us. Consumers are now seeing ads on television talking about the great shale pools of natural gas the new technology is bringing. Yet very quietly we are trying to keep a lot of that out of reach, all in the name of the environment. We have all other kinds of energy resources we ought to be going after and developing. I believe the next decade in front of us is the decade of energy. I think as a Congress we are awakening. I know the consumers have awakened and they are going to demand that Congress do what is right, all in the name of new production, new technologies, diverse kinds of energy portfolios for our country. We will not be a wealthy nation 20 years from now. We will not be a nation that allows our citizens and our young people to pursue the American dream as we and our parents before us and our grandparents before them. We need to recognize the next 20 years ought to be and must be dedicated to the production of energy; all forms, clean, diverse. That is our challenge. So let's connect the dots. Last night we talked about a credit crunch and a credit crisis. I believe it was worsened by an energy crunch and an energy crisis we have lived through and are currently continuing to live through. If the Congress does not bring that together, then we will fail, or at least we will not allow the greatest hope and the greatest expectation of our country, this great country, to see its natural level. Those are our challenges. Bold votes last night, bold and necessary steps were taken. Can this Senate as a policymaking body be as bold in energy as we were with the economy? That is the challenge we face. I will not face it anymore. But everybody who serves here will. I hope they can meet that challenge. Because if they fail, then our great Nation is weakened and the opportunities many of us have worked for, for our children and our grandchildren over the years, simply cannot be realized. So Senate, Congress, connect the dots. Work at getting the economy right, work at getting energy production back online, work at giving this great enterprising country of ours the opportunity to create and to be what it can be. That is a necessary and important challenge. I am confident, if the citizens of our country demand it, the Congress will rise to that occasion. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my partner and colleague from Idaho, soon to become Idaho's senior Senator, Mike Crapo. Mike and I have had a working relationship and a friendship for literally decades, and it is one I have greatly appreciated over the years because of his consistent and wise counsel. While I came to the Congress before Mike, Senator Crapo was in the legislature during a period of time after I was there, and so he brought with him, first to the House and then to the Senate, the very similar experiences I had as a State legislator. I highly recommend that to anyone who wants to serve in the Senate, that they have that experience on the ground in their home State in a way that brings the reality of State governments and the Federal Government together. Certainly, over the years Senator Crapo has had that experience and has shared it with me. Together, I think we have made a very valuable team for our State. There is another aspect of Senator Crapo I have so highly regarded over the years, and certainly the Presiding Officer from Colorado would appreciate it. there is probably one single most valuable commodity in the high deserts of the West--such as many parts of the Colorado and the State of Idaho--and that is water. There is an old phrase that many have heard over the years, which is that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over. And there is a lot of truth to that. Our States historically have that in their background as we sorted out our water problems and began to recognize these phenomenally valuable commodities. Mike Crapo, in his other life, spent a lot of time with water law. I always said that when it came to water issues here in Washington, while they best be fought out in the State Capitol in Boise, I wanted Mike Crapo by my side as we worked through water issues that were for our State and certainly for the Nation. Not only does he know the law, coming out of a high desert environment of the kind that is in southern, southeastern, and southwestern Idaho, he knows the reality. He knows the importance. He knows that water is life and death. It is economy or no economy based on its value. That is the kind of partnership we have had over the years. I will be replaced by Idaho's lieutenant governor, Jim Risch. I am confident he will be elected, for a lot of reasons. First, he is a highly competent person. Idaho knows him well and respects him. He has served Idaho well and he will serve us very well here. He will become the junior partner of the soon-to-be senior Senator, Mike Crapo. That teamship, that organizational effort, that combining of forces on by far a majority of issues will be held for Idaho's interests. Mike and I rarely split our votes. When we do, we talk about them, we know our differences and we understand them. But we have realized over the years that the team approach for Idaho and the Idaho delegation is very important for a small State--small by population, at least, certainly not small by geography. So the friendship and the relationship I have had with Senator Crapo over the years has been personally very valuable to me, but I trust it has been very valuable to the State of Idaho. But that kind of working, teaming partnership is going to continue as I step down and Jim Risch is elected in November to continue to work with Mike Crapo. So I say to my colleague, Senator Crapo: Thank you. Thank you for the kind remarks and the working relationship and friendship we have had over the years. And to the presiding officer, while he has not served here as long as either of us, I would say to him that he fits in immediately, because he is a westerner who understands our issues, because they are his issues, and we have already begun to work those kinds of partnerships and relationships that are very valuable to the West, to the public lands, and to the interests of our States' people. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. May I inquire of the Senator how much more floor time he will take?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today at a time of significant financial crisis in our Nation to discuss a program within this continuing resolution that, in my opinion, is the wrong priority at the wrong time. Over the last 2 years, the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee has brought before the Committee and this Senate legislation to authorize bonus payments for Filipino veterans who fought in World War II. Like my colleague and good friend, Senator Akaka, I respect and honor the sacrifice of the Filipinos in that war, and I respect his tenacity to pass what he believes is a remedy to a wrong. This is where I unfortunately part with the Senator. After World War II, the Philippines were not left destitute, with America turning a blind eye to their sacrifice and efforts in the war. In fact, the United States has spent millions upon millions of dollars on infrastructure in the Philippines. However, there are some who think that is not enough. There are some who believe that Filipino veterans deserve to have all the benefits and entitlements that American veterans are afforded. I disagree. At a time when we have soldiers coming home broken from combat, this bill would designate as an ``emergency'' $198 million to provide a lump-sum payment of $9,000 to Filipino veterans currently living in the Philippines and $15,000 for those Filipino veterans living in the United States. Mr. President, let me say that again: this would designate the funding I just spoke of as an ``emergency.'' Now, I know how things work around here. Someone's emergency doesn't always seem to be too urgent to other folks. But please, I would like somebody to come to this floor and explain to me how giving Filipino veterans a check for $9,000 or $15,000 can be seen as an emergency. Not when we are debating landmark legislation to shore up our economy, which is suffering so greatly. Not when we have Senators coming to this floor repeatedly arguing that we have so badly underfunded the VA that we need supplemental spending every year just to keep up. Not when there are towns in Texas still cleaning up from the ravages of Hurricane Ike. And not when we have a Forest Service that is broke and must borrow and steal from other agencies to ensure that we can fight against wildfires threatening thousands of people's homes. Mr. President, I could go on for days talking about true emergencies in our Nation. However, designating a fund for Filipino veterans as an ``emergency'' just doesn't pass the smell test. And this is not an insignificant amount of money, Mr. President: we are talking about almost $200 million that could be used for items that truly deserve to be considered emergencies. I know that we will pass this continuing resolution, and I praise the work that was done on most of this bill. There are a lot of good programs that will get funded because of this bill and the work that was done on it. Unfortunately, I could not stay silent when I saw that almost $200 million, designated as emergency spending, was going to be spent on non-American veterans for actions taken in the 1940s. I hope that my colleagues today will take a serious look at the authorization that will come before this Senate in the future to allow this funding to be spent. It is my serious belief, as I hope I spelled out clearly here today, that this funding should not be spent for its intended purpose. Instead, Senators should look at this funding as a way to pay for priorities, either within the VA or other agencies that have been underfunded, that are true emergencies.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague for his generosity. I understand the time constraints he was under under his UC. I appreciate that a great deal. I certainly object for this side because it had not been cleared, and following the standard procedures of this Senate, no Senator comes to the floor in the absence of others and makes the unanimous consent request expecting it to pass. So I was speaking on behalf of the Republican side where a Senator has not yet cleared this bill. It was not a reflection of my own attitude or concern over the issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor often over the last good number of years to speak about a variety of issues. In the last 4 or 5 years, I spoke of my concern over a lack of a national energy policy and the productivity of the great private sector in our country to produce energy for the American consumer and the inability of public policy or political figures to allow that to happen for all kinds of reasons, and obviously we have now experienced one of the greatest energy shocks in our country's economy. Yet we still stand still today, immobile in our ability to deal with it for a variety of reasons. Today, I do not come to the floor to speak about energy. I am here today to speak about two health care issues that are important to our Nation: accessibility to health care services and health care for veterans. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I had the opportunity to learn more about the phenomenal job the Department of Veterans Affairs does to provide health care to our Nation's veterans. VA runs facilities across the country that employ some of the finest doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals. These are dedicated men and women who provide world class health care to our Nation's heroes. The VA is also a training ground for many of our Nation's health care professionals. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, more than half--yes, that is right, more than half--of our Nation's physicians receive some part of their medical training in VA hospitals. Over 28,000 residents and nearly 17,000 medical students rotate through the VA health care system each year. Clearly, VA has become an invaluable piece of the health care system for all Americans. At the same time, the VA is a separate health care system within our Nation and creates a certain disconnect. The focus of the VA has been on establishing a system that is dependent upon bricks and mortar and a fixed location. In the vast majority of situations, veterans enrolled in the VA health care system must receive health care at VA facilities unless they want to pay for care through private insurance or out of their own pockets. This means that veterans who do not live near a VA facility have a more difficult time accessing VA care because of where they choose to live. To address this, VA aims to build facilities in strategic locations to serve the greatest number of veterans. I am pleased that in the past few years VA increased the number of outpatient clinics in my State of Idaho. Unfortunately, these new clinics cannot completely resolve all of the issues or serve veterans in a total way. I am sure all of my colleagues, and particularly those who represent rural States such as my home State of Idaho, have heard from veterans who wish they could utilize their VA health care benefits at a facility closer to their home. It is a significant barrier to care when a veteran has to drive for several hours to reach a VA facility. An elderly veteran, possibly in his or her seventies or eighties, driving literally hundreds of miles to get to that VA facility, is in itself not only impractical, in many instances it is impossible for that veteran. We also need to consider health care access for the general population. It is no surprise that our Nation is facing a crisis when it comes to having an adequate supply of health care professionals. According to a July 2007 report of the American Hospital Association, U.S. hospitals need approximately 116,000--that is right, 116,000-- registered nurses to fill vacant positions. This is a national RN vacancy rate of about 8.1 percent. Another study estimates that the shortage of RNs could reach 500,000 by 2025. I did the math on my age and determined that is about when I am going to start needing possibly more health care provided by health care professionals. At this moment, we are suggesting this will be the period of time when there will be potentially the greatest shortage. An aging workforce, a shortage of slots in nursing schools, and an aging population that is living longer and therefore requiring more health care services are all contributing to this nursing shortage. This shortage in health care providers is not limited to nurses. In the 2006 report by the Health Resources and Services Administration, they project a shortfall of around 55,000 physicians by 2020. In addition, various studies have indicated current or impending deficiencies in various specialties, including cardiology, rheumatology, and neurosurgery, as well as primary care. I think most Americans understand the significance of this situation. We can build all of the medical facilities we want, but they serve no purpose if there are not enough medical professionals to work in these hospitals and clinics. That is where the VA and other medical facilities, be they public, private or nonprofit, run into each other. They are all competing for a pool of health care professionals that is not growing, and that is not growing as quickly as it is needed. I am concerned that ultimately this will diminish the quality of health care that is delivered to our Nation's veterans and, of course, to all Americans. So how do we address the health care needs of all Americans when faced with these challenges? I think we need to examine how we can integrate VA facilities with other health care facilities to better serve not only veterans but entire communities. Is there a way that we can utilize existing VA facilities to serve all of those living in rural communities that struggle to recruit health care professionals without compromising care for veterans? Is there a way we can change the VA health care system to enable veterans to receive care at their local non-VA health care providers? I know these kinds of changes will not happen quickly and they will not happen easily. Earlier this session I introduced two pieces of legislation that proposed dramatic changes in the VA health care system. I will say that these proposals were not enthusiastically welcomed by many of those entrenched in the veteran advocacy community. S. 815, the Veterans Health Care Empowerment Act, would allow veterans with a service-connected disability to receive hospital or other medical care at any Medicare or TRICARE-eligible facility. When I introduced this legislation last March, I stated my belief that most veterans would choose to continue to receive health care at a VA facility. I still believe that is true. But I also know this legislation would enhance access of care for veterans who do not live near a VA facility by serving them in the communities in which they live. I also introduced legislation, S. 441, the State Veterans Home Modernization Act, which would allow, instead of building veterans homes, noninstitutional care and daycare and respite care for our veterans. I know my time is now limited, so let me close with this thought. Earlier this year, a group of young Idaho Iraqi and Afghan vets came to my office concerned about health care. One of them pulled from his pocket a credit card and said: Senator, why cannot this become a VA health care card that allows me access to health care in my community paid for by the Veterans' Administration because I have, upon my service and upon my disability, been granted access to the VA health care system? I live in rural Idaho. But why must I travel miles when there are hospitals and clinics all around me? I cannot have access to them. What is wrong with that picture? What is wrong with that picture is that this wonderful, marvelous VA health care system is a static, in- place system that does not have the flexibility that modern health care speaks to and that it must have in the future. I am retiring from the Senate, so these pieces of legislation will not be introduced again. But I am challenging my colleagues, as you stand and so proudly speak of your concern for veterans and your concern for their care, that you step away from the bricks and mortar and from the rigidity of the activist advocacy groups who think that health care for veterans can only be delivered in one form. Modernize it. Change it. Give it flexibility if we want to give ultimate health care to our veterans, and if we want to integrate nonveterans into that quality health care system in a way that strengthens it, improves it, and sustains it in an economical fashion. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou and Ambassador Jason Yuan on celebrating China's Double Ten National Day. The people of Taiwan should be proud of their freedom, their political system, and Taiwan's strong economy. With good schools, excellent health facilities, and a sophisticated transit system, Taiwan is a model of development for the region. National Day affords us the opportunity to reflect on those successes. In addition, I want to recognize Taiwan's ongoing efforts to strengthen its ties with China and its continual commitment to constructive relationships with democratic nations throughout the world. Taiwan and the United States have enjoyed a very positive partnership through the years--a relationship that I am confident will continue to benefit our respective citizens. On this Chinese National Day, I again offer my congratulations to the Taiwanese government and people for their past success and send my best wishes for this year's celebration.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, while I think most of us have been focused on H.R. 6049, as amended by the Senate, primarily on the tax extenders and some of the energy tax credits and provisions that we believe are critically important to our economy and to the American business sector that is, by any measure, having difficulty at the moment, something is also in this legislation that is phenomenally important to timber- dependent school districts throughout the United States but dominantly in the Pacific Northwest. That is a provision called the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Program. Now, if I were in Oregon, I would call it the Wyden-Craig bill. If I am in Idaho, I call it the Craig-Wyden bill. It is legislation that both Senator Wyden and I, a good number of years ago, fashioned when I was chairing the Forestry and Public Lands Subcommittee and he was my ranking member, when we came to the Senate and said we have the rural schools of our timber-dependent communities and counties in crisis. Through the decade of the 1990s, we saw a dramatic reduction in the allowable cut of timber on our public land forests for a variety of reasons. As a result, a 1908 policy, established by Gifford Pinchot and President Teddy Roosevelt, said if we are going to create these forest preserves, we have to connect the communities of interest with them. By that, I do not mean the Sierra Club. I mean that little community sitting out in the forest that is trying to make a living off our forests and to supply to its county its roads and bridges and to its citizens its schools. We will give them a piece of the stumpage or the fee the Federal Government is paid by a private logging company to cut that tree and turn it into lumber. Down through the years, we did just that. We financed many of our counties and many of our schools in these dependent communities largely with the stumpage fee from public timber. In some counties, it was 50 or 60 percent of the county budget. In certain counties of Oregon, in the O&C lands of Oregon, it was oftentimes the near whole school budget and oftentimes a very large chunk of the county budget. Well, when that timber went away, for a lot of different reasons, most of them environmental, so went the money. We saw that as a crisis in our school districts, looked at it, evaluated it, established a formula, came to the Senate, and said: We have to help these school districts that do not have fee land. They do not have private property to tax. They are all public lands. I say to the Presiding Officer, I have counties in my State that are larger than your entire State, Mr. President, and most of them are 60 or 70 percent public lands. They don't pay taxes, but they produce product. We, a long time ago, nearly 100 years ago, decided that product the Government was selling ought to pay something back to the communities. So we established this legislation, Craig-Wyden. It lived its life. It secured our schools and our communities. It allowed some self-determination. It brought together regional advisory groups, issue groups who were warring amongst each other, and it brought common cause to the public concern on our national forested lands. It was highly successful, but it expired. In a time of deficits and financial difficulties and finding all of the needed resources we need for our Government, it became very difficult to refinance, to reauthorize this program. I have school districts that were laying off essential educators, canceling programs that would provide for the quality education of the students simply because we could not pass this legislation. Today, we passed the legislation. Today, we reauthorized, for a period of up to 4 years, this program. It is vastly important to hundreds of school districts across the Nation. When I say the Pacific Northwest--Idaho, Oregon, and Washington--it is Montana, it is California--northern California tremendously--it is Mississippi. I suspect there are a few school districts in the State of Colorado and other places that are highly dependent upon this particular piece of legislation. So I am here this evening to thank my colleagues for being sensitive to these public land-bound counties that simply do not have fee land to finance their essential needs--roads, bridges, schools--and they cannot ask the other taxpayers to assume their burden outside the counties within the State. My State anticipated the difficulty of reauthorizing and created some contingency, but still it would not have funded the full school program. So tonight we have acted and sent a very clear message to these counties, to these schools that we take educating the young people of these school districts as a high priority, that we see the vitality of these communities as extremely important. So tonight, in section 601, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Program, we have reauthorized Craig-Wyden. I thank my colleagues for allowing that to happen. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be recognized.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Idaho Efficient Vehicle Demonstration Act of 2008. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Crapo, is fully supportive and an original cosponsor of this bill, and that an identical bill will be introduced today in the House of Representatives by our colleagues, Representatives Mike Simpson and Bill Sali. This is a bill that is very important to the State of Idaho. It is a bill that will improve the efficiency of freight movement within the State, provide significant economic benefits to a variety of local natural resource-based industries, and establish a record attesting to the safety of heavier, more efficient vehicles. The State of Idaho has long recognized the need to provide a more productive means of freight transport. In light of that, the Idaho State Legislature created a pilot project in 2003 to allow vehicle combinations weighing up to 129,000 pounds on designated routes within the State highway system. As a result of this pilot project, Idaho has realized significant economic benefits and has established a strong record of safety while utilizing more efficient vehicles. Idaho's sugar beet, potato, grain, dairy and phosphate industries reported that participation in the pilot project resulted in reduced fuel consumption and equipment maintenance and increased productivity based on estimates of five to eight percent savings in freight costs. Amalgamated Sugar Company reported 30,000 fewer truck trips, resulting in an estimated savings of just under $300,000. This pilot project has been in effect for 5 years and no safety concerns have been raised by the participants or by the Idaho Transportation Department in their initial report last year. In fact, survey responses from pilot project participants found that safety was the same or greater due to the reduced numbers of trucks on the road. Similarly, the pilot project has not been found to create a significant change in pavement conditions when compared to previous years. In light of this 5-year record, I believe it is appropriate and necessary to make a very small, targeted expansion of this project by adding limited stretches of Federal highway to the existing State pilot project to help connect our State and Federal roads so that the movement of goods can proceed more efficiently in the future. This small expansion is necessary for several reasons. Idaho's neighboring States of Montana, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming do not have such stringent limits on their Federal highways due to grandfathered rights. This puts Idaho at a distinct competitive disadvantage and slows the free flow of freight between neighboring States. This bill would help to even that disparity in weight restrictions among our neighbors. It will also provide valuable data and information to the U.S. Department of Transportation as to the net beneficial effects to our infrastructure by requiring that road, bridge and accident information is gathered and reported. This bill has the strong support of Idaho Governor Butch Otter, the Idaho Transportation Department, and the business community, including both shippers and motor carriers. The Idaho Trucking Association has specifically endorsed this proposal as have numerous shipper companies that are based in my home State. I recognize that there are significant challenges facing the freight industry and, by association, our natural resource-based industries that rely heavily on trucks to move their freight. Changes in truck emission requirements, a seemingly perpetual driver shortage, sustained high fuel costs, and increasing insurance premiums are only a few of the challenges that face truck companies and struggling industries in Idaho. With that said, this is one step that can be taken to relieve some of the burden on our freight industry, and do so in a safe, economic and environmentally friendly fashion. If enacted, this bill will improve safety by reducing the number of trucks on Idaho roads. It will have a positive environmental impact by reducing diesel consumption and emissions. It will provide an economic boost to the State by reducing wear and tear on Idaho highways and improving the competitiveness of our natural resource industries. In light of the enormous task of reauthorizing our Nation's surface transportation policy next year, it is important that proposals of this nature be allowed time to be discussed and vetted at length. Ultimately, it is my hope that we might be able to make some targeted changes to Federal weight restrictions in order to achieve significant environmental and economic gains while still keeping the highest regard for safety. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move forward this important issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Idaho Efficient Vehicle Demonstration Act of 2008. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Crapo, is fully supportive and an original cosponsor of this bill, and that an identical bill will be introduced today in the House of Representatives by our colleagues, Representatives Mike Simpson and Bill Sali. This is a bill that is very important to the State of Idaho. It is a bill that will improve the efficiency of freight movement within the State, provide significant economic benefits to a variety of local natural resource-based industries, and establish a record attesting to the safety of heavier, more efficient vehicles. The State of Idaho has long recognized the need to provide a more productive means of freight transport. In light of that, the Idaho State Legislature created a pilot project in 2003 to allow vehicle combinations weighing up to 129,000 pounds on designated routes within the State highway system. As a result of this pilot project, Idaho has realized significant economic benefits and has established a strong record of safety while utilizing more efficient vehicles. Idaho's sugar beet, potato, grain, dairy and phosphate industries reported that participation in the pilot project resulted in reduced fuel consumption and equipment maintenance and increased productivity based on estimates of five to eight percent savings in freight costs. Amalgamated Sugar Company reported 30,000 fewer truck trips, resulting in an estimated savings of just under $300,000. This pilot project has been in effect for 5 years and no safety concerns have been raised by the participants or by the Idaho Transportation Department in their initial report last year. In fact, survey responses from pilot project participants found that safety was the same or greater due to the reduced numbers of trucks on the road. Similarly, the pilot project has not been found to create a significant change in pavement conditions when compared to previous years. In light of this 5-year record, I believe it is appropriate and necessary to make a very small, targeted expansion of this project by adding limited stretches of Federal highway to the existing State pilot project to help connect our State and Federal roads so that the movement of goods can proceed more efficiently in the future. This small expansion is necessary for several reasons. Idaho's neighboring States of Montana, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming do not have such stringent limits on their Federal highways due to grandfathered rights. This puts Idaho at a distinct competitive disadvantage and slows the free flow of freight between neighboring States. This bill would help to even that disparity in weight restrictions among our neighbors. It will also provide valuable data and information to the U.S. Department of Transportation as to the net beneficial effects to our infrastructure by requiring that road, bridge and accident information is gathered and reported. This bill has the strong support of Idaho Governor Butch Otter, the Idaho Transportation Department, and the business community, including both shippers and motor carriers. The Idaho Trucking Association has specifically endorsed this proposal as have numerous shipper companies that are based in my home State. I recognize that there are significant challenges facing the freight industry and, by association, our natural resource-based industries that rely heavily on trucks to move their freight. Changes in truck emission requirements, a seemingly perpetual driver shortage, sustained high fuel costs, and increasing insurance premiums are only a few of the challenges that face truck companies and struggling industries in Idaho. With that said, this is one step that can be taken to relieve some of the burden on our freight industry, and do so in a safe, economic and environmentally friendly fashion. If enacted, this bill will improve safety by reducing the number of trucks on Idaho roads. It will have a positive environmental impact by reducing diesel consumption and emissions. It will provide an economic boost to the State by reducing wear and tear on Idaho highways and improving the competitiveness of our natural resource industries. In light of the enormous task of reauthorizing our Nation's surface transportation policy next year, it is important that proposals of this nature be allowed time to be discussed and vetted at length. Ultimately, it is my hope that we might be able to make some targeted changes to Federal weight restrictions in order to achieve significant environmental and economic gains while still keeping the highest regard for safety. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move forward this important issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will object because of my concern of the way the given legislation is being handled--this is an issue on which the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and I have had some difference. At the same time, I clearly recognize the phenomenal commitment of the chairman to veterans and, in this case, to Filipino veterans who served us so gallantly during World War II. It is my understanding there is a conflict in the House at this minute relating to the passage of legislation the Senate has moved. This is an effort to avert that conflict and bring the bill to a conference committee in a different form by using a House-passed bill. It is a tactic I hoped we would not use to address this important issue. The Senate can and should revisit this issue at another time. I hope we will. It is with that intent that I object to this unanimous consent request.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I understand that Senator Akaka is en route to the floor to speak and possibly put forth a unanimous consent request. He is entering the Chamber now. I know he has time for that consideration. I will not speak as in morning business, but I will close by saying I thank my colleague from Oregon. The years we have worked together have become a very valuable partnership for the benefit of public land States and for us to recognize the changing world in which we live in these States. But the demand is still on the communities. No matter how the use of public land--or how we apply policy to public land changes, we still have to maintain roads, bridges, and schools if there is going to be vitality in a community that can support new economic opportunity in the coming years. That is what the Senator has so eloquently spoken to. We both recognized that, and we used the Public Land Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I chaired and which he now chairs, as that link and partnership to accomplish a great deal of this. I thank him for that work. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, for the work he has continually done on behalf of timber- dependent school districts and this uniqueness that Western States have that have these large portfolios of public land and have grown increasingly dependent upon the action taken by the Federal Government and the reaction in the States and the impact on the economy of local communities. When he and I stood together and worked out Wyden-Craig, Craig-Wyden and worked with our timber-dependent school districts and got it funded, we solved a very big problem. The advisory committees the Senator speaks to were in themselves a phenomenon in the sense that after 2,300 decisions by those groups to do activities on public lands, and not one of them objected to by an interest group or a suit filed to stop them, Senator Wyden and I grew convinced that we could work together to resolve our public land issues when we put determination and resource behind them, and that is what we did. I thank Senator Wyden very much for staying with this. It is my understanding that in the tax extenders package we will consider this coming week, we will see a reauthorization of Wyden-Craig that will get this work done, send a message back to our school districts and our counties that we are here to help, to assist, and to stabilize the very dire economic conditions those school districts and counties are experiencing. I thank Senator Wyden for sticking to it and with it because it is that kind of resolve that may solve this substantial problem. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we may be hours or a day away from adjourning for the August recess. At the same time, many of us have said there is no more important issue for this Senate to be dealing with than the issue of energy and the price of gas at the pump. For the last year, the American consumer has gone through increasing price shocks as they have seen more and more of their family budget left at the service station or gas station every time they fill the family car. First it was $15, then $20, then $25, then $30, $40, $50, and in some instances now and in certain locations $60 to fill the family car. If that family car is also the vehicle in which they commute to their workplace and they have to fill it several times a week, it has become a dramatic hit on the American family in a way that has now clearly registered in polling across our country and in what we are hearing every day in our phone calls coming in from those distressed Americans out there who are paying more for energy than they ever have before. That is just one side of the energy equation. Our whole world, our whole economy runs on energy. The cost of that energy in that economy has to be felt--whether it is in the heating of the home or the processing, manufacturing, or growing of food. All segments of our economy feed on energy and feed, basically, on gas or hydrocarbons that are reduced into gas and diesel and oil and plastics and the refining of energy. All of them have also become factors for which the average American--and certainly the average Idahoan--is paying now at a higher price than they have ever paid. In my great open Western State of Idaho, we travel long distances. The majority of our people do not live downtown, don't live in the suburbs. They live out in the countryside. Going to town is a trip that is not unusual to rack up 50, 60, 70, 80 miles. I grew up on a ranch that was 30 miles from the nearest community. It was not unrealistic, when my mother went to town to acquire groceries or do the family shopping, to travel 60 or 70 or 80 miles in one round trip. That still goes on today in many of our Western States. So the cost for that family has gone up dramatically, also, simply by the character of where we live. Yet, for the last 2 weeks, in an effort to try to deal with this issue on the floor of the Senate by allowing the offering of amendments that would in many ways cause production to begin once again in this country in locations where we know oil exists today but they have been taken off limits for political reasons--in that debate over the last 2 weeks, the leadership, the Democratic Party, the majority leader has stopped us from doing so on at least six different occasions. Why, I am not sure--why any leadership of the great Senate would stop this Senate from doing what the American consumer and the American voter are asking for is largely beyond me. I could speculate--and I have, on numerous occasions, in speeches on the floor over the last several weeks, as have my colleagues. But one thing is clear: On six occasions, the majority leader, the Democratic leader, has said: No, we will not proceed to offer amendments to allow or to cause this country to become once again a producing nation. Now we are about ready to try a seventh time. I am told that on the Defense Authorization Act, cloture has been filed. That is a procedure we use here in the Senate ultimately to force a vote on whether we will proceed to go to Defense authorization. We could vote on that today if we all agreed or we could vote on it tomorrow, as the cloture motion ripens--the term we use here in the Senate when all time has run out. I know what our vote is going to be. As important as Defense authorization is, we are going to say no. There is something even more important today to every American than that Defense authorization; that is, the price of energy at the pump which is literally sucking the family budget dry. What do we do? My guess is we are going to adjourn for the August recess having done nothing. Every Senator here is going to go home. I hope they go home to explain to their voters and to their State why they would not vote for increased production; why they will not allow this great country of ours to get in the business of producing energy once again. The President has responded. He removed the moratoria he had placed on Outer Continental Shelf drilling. Prices dropped a little as a result of that. Yesterday, the Interior Department initiated a 5-year oil and gas leasing program for the OCS. They are preparing, if we act, to expedite and allow these areas in which we believe production can go on to go on there sooner. We have heard the argument here on the floor that it is 5 or 6 or 7 years away. No, it is not. In many areas, it could be as short as 2 or 3 years. And the anticipation of coming into the market in 2 or 3 years, in nearly everyone's opinion who understands oil markets--they would tell you it would bring the price of that product down now in the market. The price already is coming down--not because of our actions but because of a beleaguered consumer out there who simply cannot afford the price anymore. That consumer and his or her family are already making decisions to shrink their travel and shrink their gas budgets. They are doing so. In the last 4 months comparable to the 4 months of a year ago, the American family has driven 40 billion fewer miles. They didn't want to, they didn't want to alter their lifestyle, but they did. The reason they did is they just simply did not have the money to go forward. The price began to drop. Across America today, the gas price in many States has now dropped below $4 a gallon. You see the marketplace is out there, and what we have said about supply and demand is true in the market even though here in the Senate the action to deny production is to deny that the marketplace exists. What is going on today across America is living proof that market exists. What can we do? If we were able to act as we have asked our majority leader here in the Senate to allow us to do, we could gain access to what we believe is about 30 billion barrels of known oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf. We think there is an additional 85 billion barrels of undiscovered resources out there, simply, if we are allowed to explore and develop the resources we know are there that are off limits today--if. If I were allowed to offer an amendment, here is the amendment I would offer. I would go to what we call the eastern gulf that is now off limits and I would say: 50 miles out from the shoreline along Florida in the eastern gulf, this would be open for leases. We believe there are over 2 billion barrels of oil out there and trillions of cubic feet of gas. Right across here are the pipelines and the infrastructure we could connect to, which would go into the refining areas in Louisiana and Texas. Doesn't that make sense? Even Floridians who once said: No, we do not want any drilling, are now by their latest polling saying: Yes, we do, because we, too, are going broke at the pump. We want an opportunity to do so. Of course, what Floridians know is that if oil is discovered here, they will share in the money that comes from it, and that can go into their educational programs and their State budgets and potentially reduce the tax burden on the average Floridian, along with bringing the price of gas down at the pumps in Florida. I have offered that amendment. I filed that amendment at the desk. Yet the majority leader of the Senate has said no, that amendment will not be offered. Ultimately, it will be offered. Ultimately, someday the voter is going to say: We have had enough of this. We are not going to stand by and let the Senate of the United States block us from the resources that are ours as a nation, that need to be developed, that can bring the price of energy down. It is a pretty simple equation and, as many of us have said, this is an interim solution. Many of us have called it a bridge to the future. The Energy Policy Act we passed in 2005, and the new Energy Policy Act we passed in 2007, already the Senate of the United States was recognizing that the day of a nation living exclusively on oil as a form of transportation energy was a day that would ultimately end and that we would invest in hybrids and electric-powered cars and new technologies. I am very proud, in my State of Idaho, that, in part, we have led those kinds of technologies in our national energy laboratory in Idaho Falls. Hydrogen cars and hydrogen initial combustion vehicles and full- sized electric cars have been experimented with and are being developed at that laboratory and in other facilities across the Nation. But that is not going to be available tomorrow. It takes billions of dollars and 10 or 15 years for a lot of this new technology to come online and be available to the American consumer. So do we sit idly by and allow the family budget to be drained away? Do we sit idly by and buy from foreign nations the billions of barrels of oil we currently buy from them and pay $1.2 billion a day to a foreign nation and drain not only our family budgets dry but our national treasure? It is a phenomenal dilemma we have put ourselves in. As you note, I used the word ``we'' put ourselves in because it is folks on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives across the Rotunda from us who have put these properties off-limits, who have put Alaska's oil off-limits, all in the name of the environment. We caused this crisis, and American families now know it. Eighty percent of American families and consumers out there are saying: Congress, fix it. For 3 weeks we have been on the floor trying to do that, and every time we try it, we are denied that opportunity in the raw name of politics. Well, we are about to go home. I hope in the raw name of politics, America's voters rise and say to their politicians: Go back to Washington and do your work and do it in a way that allows this great Nation of ours to once again become a producing Nation, not just a consuming Nation. We know the resources are there. Our national geologic survey says they are there. We know they are there because they have been put off- limits in the name of the environment years ago when gas was cheap. But many of us who have worked in this area for a long while said the day would come when there would be a break point and no longer would America be sitting with cheap energy available in an unlimited way. That day is here. Yet, politically, we are bound up. We cannot move. I guess we will now not move to do what we ought to be doing for the American consumer, acting and allowing these resources to become available so we can develop them in a safe and clean environmental way for the American consumers to use. This is a challenge for all of us, but it is a challenge we are capable of meeting if we simply surpass the politics of the moment and get on with the business of this great country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the next few moments, I wish to change the pace of our debate on the floor of the Senate. I am pleased the Senator from Montana is now the Presiding Officer in the Senate because I want to tell that Senator I am a cosponsor of a piece of legislation he and the Senator from Wyoming have introduced that would provide grants to Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, and to tribes and other States, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, to support landowner actions to prevent livestock predation, and to compensate landowners for a loss of livestock by gray wolves and other predator species. Why would I come to the floor of the Senate and want to talk about wolves? Well, let me tell you what happened in the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in 1995. In my opinion, the Secretary of the Interior at that time, Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Secretary to the administration of Bill Clinton, did something that I said at the time I believed to be a direct violation of Federal law and congressional intent. He allowed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to go into Canada, collect Canadian gray wolves, bring them into the lower 48, and in the late fall or early winter of 1995, he dropped 15 of those wolves into a wilderness area in Idaho-- certainly satisfying the wishes of a lot of environmental interests, but, in my opinion, directly violating the language of an Interior appropriations bill, language that I and the then Senator from Montana, Mr. Conrad Burns, had put in the bill saying: None of these moneys shall be used for the purposes of introducing gray wolves into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Well, Bruce Babbitt did it, with great fanfare, with great public attention, and with a very large smile on his face. Then, in 1996, he introduced another 20 wolves into central Idaho. What is the end result of what happened? This was the effort to do what we called the introduction of an experimental number of wolves back into a habitat that wolves once roamed wild in. It was supposed to be a limited experiment of what we called an experimental herd or pack, or packs, of wolves, an experimental species, and it was to be limited. We said at that time that when the number reached a certain number--at least 100 breeding pairs in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming--it would no longer be experimental, and it would no longer be endangered, and the extraordinary protection of the Endangered Species Act would come off. That simply did not happen. Today, we literally have thousands of wolves roaming the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Some would say: Oh, isn't that wonderful, and isn't that exciting, and isn't that natural? Well, it may be natural in relation to 1880 or 1890, and it may be wonderful for some who behold the dream of an unoccupied great West. But to those of us who live in the West today, who live in an occupied area, where domestic livestock graze, and where the human species loves to camp, we have a problem. Our problem is quite simple. Wolves protected have no predator. The human species is the only predator. And in the absence of our ability to control them, they multiply very rapidly in an unlimited area with an unlimited feed source. Their feed or food source--their prey base--happens to be what was once the great elk herds of Idaho along with our deer population. And now, as they have begun to decimate those populations, they are beginning to pick off domestic livestock, both cattle and sheep, that graze on these public lands. This map I have in the Chamber demonstrates, from the 35 wolves that were dumped into Idaho in 1995 and 1996--in approximately this area-- the phenomenal spread that has occurred across the entire State of Idaho, into Montana, and down into Wyoming, in areas where we believe there could well be more than 3,000 wild roaming wolves. So the Department of Interior then said: It is now time we delist these wolves. We thought that was going to work until again a judge, who probably knows nothing about wolves, listened to a couple environmental groups, and said: I don't think we ought to allow that to happen. As a result, all of that effort was stopped. But still the taking of domestic livestock--both cattle and sheep--continues to this day. I have served on the Appropriations Committee. In the absence of us doing the right and responsible thing, I kept adding money every year not only for the management and the shaping of these wolf populations, but also to offer some compensation to ranchers--both cattle and sheep--who were losing their livestock. The Senator from Montana, who is presiding at this moment, the Senator from Wyoming and I have joined--they have introduced the legislation; I am a cosponsor--to hopefully bring about a stabilized fund to offset the literally hundreds of thousands of dollars our ranchers are now losing, all in the good name of Secretary Bruce Babbitt of the Clinton administration, who had the wonderful dream that he could take a West once unoccupied by the human species and repopulate it with a wolf. Need I say more? A wolf is not a kind, sweet, and cuddly little animal. They are large. They are aggressive. They drag down elk, moose, deer. And they are now beginning, as I have said, to take domestic livestock. A week ago, a young man, who was out training his hounds by chasing bear, ran into a pack of wolves. The wolves chased the guy off and killed all the hounds. Some of these well-trained hounds are worth $4,000 and $5,000 apiece. There was absolutely nothing that gentleman could do. Could he shoot the wolves? No. No, it is against the law, the Federal law, that he dare touch them. So he had to watch his beloved dogs eaten. That is happening more and more every day in Idaho, as this map grows more and more covered with incidents of packs and individual and collective numbers of wolves. It is true in my State of Idaho. It is true in the State of the Senator from Montana. It is certainly true in Wyoming. As we try to bring these wolf populations under control, we have interest groups and a Federal judge who raps his gavel and says: No. The State of Idaho is attempting, under this Secretary of the Interior, and others, to take reasonable and responsible control of them, and to once again shape these populations of wolves so wolves can once again be in Idaho and, at the same time, to recognize the need to maintain populations of elk and deer is what we want to do. And it is what the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Commission and Fish and Wildlife agencies were doing in a responsible way--until, once again, a Federal judge intervenes, who knows little to nothing about the species itself, or probably the law, and says: I guess maybe that environmental group is right. Maybe we need more wolves so we get a genetically clear balance. We are more interested in the genetics of the wolf than we are the decimation of the elk herds, the deer populations, and the domestic livestock. I have said with great trepidation, but I say in all sincerity: Do we have to wait until a wolf drags down a human species before there is a sense of alarm? Because they have now penetrated all of Idaho. They are literally in our backyards. Yet the romance goes on about this great dream of a wild West where you can hear the lonesome wolf howl at night. And they are howling. They are howling loudly right in our backyards. And a blind Federal agency and a blind Federal judge and a romantic environmental theory says that is OK. It is tragic for the wolf because, ultimately, these populations will have to be brought under control. It is tragic for Idahoans and folks in Montana and Wyoming to see their pets and their domestic livestock dragged down and killed, with little if anything they can do about it. I hope my colleagues would support S. 2875, as a minimal stopgap to provide these domestic livestock operators with some compensation for the losses they are now taking because Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior under the Clinton administration, had a wonderful and wild western dream. I yield the floor.