Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution No. 356 submitted earlier by Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will briefly respond to my colleague from Oregon in relation to the legislation about which he has just spoken. I certainly agree with him. He and I, working together--I as chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, he as the ranking member--saw and recognized a crisis in the rural communities of America that were once named timber dependent because they had derived a share of their revenue to fund their schools, roads, and bridge funds from the revenue of timber receipts which have faded dramatically. We began to work together on a resolution of the problem, and tonight we have brought that to the floor. I certainly agree with Senator Wyden. It was contentious at times, but we saw the need to respond to what literally had become a national crisis in rural resource-dependent communities across our country. Well over 4,000 school districts and nearly 50,000 children were victimized by actions or policies that failed to recognize that we had to adjust law and/or change policy or we were simply going to find these school districts beyond their capacities not only to fund but to educate. It was also true with counties' roads and bridge funds. The legislation that has just passed the Senate tonight sets us in a direction of resolving that problem and bringing about a resolution through a collaborative process at the local level between so many stakeholders who have legitimate concerns and interests as to how the natural resources of our public lands be managed. I am so pleased that we could work toward an end that we have arrived at tonight that is embodied in S. 1608. We still have work to do in adjusting our public policies to bring about the kind of balance we need. As the Presiding Officer well understands, rural America, be it agricultural policy or resource policy, finds itself with very real problems today. It is going to be incumbent upon some of us in this body to try to address those problems, both in the adjustment of policy and certainly in the recognition of the necessary resources to help these communities. Tonight, in part, we will have responded to that need.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for no more than 1 minute. I want to respond to my colleague.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to, the committee substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the amendment to the title be agreed to, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there is a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 1999, solves a severe crisis in America's rural, forest counties driven by the precipitous decline in federal timber receipts over the last decade. The bill provides vital payments to schools and counties, while providing option to direct a portion of the payments to the development of local projects to address the needs of our families and forests. S. 1608 provides equity and increased educational opportunities for rural school children. States that are dominated by federally owned lands are facing a dual economic and educational crisis. Our nation contains almost 800 forest counties; 2,000 forest school districts; 600,000 rural families, and more than 4 million school children who depend upon rural public schools for their education. These children deserve the same educational opportunities as their counterparts in urban areas. Mosr urban areas across America witnessed unprecedented prosperity throughout the 1990s. However, in our rural forest counties, the decade has been a one-way slide toward poverty, unemployment, and a lower standard of living for communities, families and children. And it is our children who have borne the brunt of the harm. Rural children have been faced with: School closings; school days and weeks shortened; class sizes increased due to teacher layoffs; classroom aides eliminated; counseling, nursing, and psychological services cut or eliminated; music, art, athletic, and academic enrichment programs eliminated; and student transportation services and winter road maintenance scaled back or eliminated. The bill's guaranteed payments will provide critical resources for our children. It will allow our teachers to once again provide them with a quality education. In crafting S. 1608, Senator Wyden and I were assisted by local community representatives who work, live, and represent thousands of rural citizens. The bill is supported by a unique coalition of more than 1000 organizations across 50 states including county officials, educators, teachers unions, labor unions, and local businesses. This bill is truly a community-based solution to a national crisis. It is very, very rare indeed, to bring a bill to the Senate floor that enjoys the breadth of support represented by the groups in favor of S. 1608. S. 1608 also provides funds to invest in collaborative improvement projects to address high priority forest management needs such as: infrastructure improvement, fuel and fire reduction, ecosystem restoration, stewardship projects and watershed protection and restoration. In addition, these cooperative county projects will contribute to local community economic self-sufficiency and family social stability. As reported, S. 1608 is a win-win solution for all of rural America; our school children, our educators, our working families, our counties, and our forestlands.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in conjunction with the administration, and the members of the Budget Committee, we have made a series of technical changes to S. 1608 as it was reported by the committee. These changes are designed to: (1) respond to the concerns of some members with the bill as reported; (2) address some additional issues raised by the Administration; (3) rectify technical problems with the bill; as well as (4) bring the bill's costs in line with the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. Let me briefly describe the most important changes for the benefit of the Senate. We have modified the formula used to calculate the ``full payment amount'' to which states are entitled from the Forest Service under this bill. Rather than having this payment calculated on the average of the three highest 25 percent payments for each eligible county within each state, the calculations will be based upon the average of the three highest 25 percent payments for each state during the fiscal years of the eligible years period. We also reduced the annual adjustment for inflation. These changes will reduce the cost of the bill as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office from $1.46 billion over a 5-year period to around $1.1 billion over the same period. In section 102(a) and section 103(a), we clarify that the duration of the bill will be fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2006. It is the manager's intent that this bill be sunsetted after six years. This language, and new language in section 209 and section 303 added by the manager's amendment emphasizes this for the purpose of clarity. We made a minor change to clarify that eligible counties that receive less than $100,000 in payments for fiscal year 2001 may elect to expend all of this money for schools and roads, whether or not the payment increases slightly in out-years as a result of the inflation adjustment. This change will assist counties with small revenue distributions. In section 202, we clarify that projects funded under this bill can be conducted on public or private lands as long as there is a benefit to federally managed resources. The committee bill was not sufficiently precise in this regard. In section 203(b)(6), we added language to more fully describe the kind of monitoring plans that we would like to see associated with projects approved under the bill. In section 204(e)(3), we elected to put some quantitative targets on the pilot projects that the bill authorizes for merchantable materials, with an out-year adjustment based upon the results of a GAO audit. We are hopeful that the administration will move aggressively to implement this pilot project, and report on its progress promptly and thoroughly to Congress. In section 401, we clarified that the bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2001 through 2006. This is to emphasize that this is a six-year bill. In section 402(b), we specify that any revenues generated by projected funded by monies authorized under this bill should be returned to the Treasury, except in the single case where a project is jointly funded by both project and non-federal revenues. The portion of revenues associated with funds provided by this bill would be retained by the appropriate Secretary. The proportion of revenues associated with funds provided by non-federal sources would be shared with those sources. This change is designed to address the concern that allowing revenues generated by projects to be retained by federal agencies would create an unwelcome incentive to focus exclusively on revenue- generating projects. Our amendment addresses this concern in an equitable fashion. With regard to the projects funded under this bill, we added language in section 204 to assure that projects will improve the maintenance of existing infrastructure, implement stewardship objectives that enhance forest ecosystems, or restore and improve land health and water quality. We also specify that fifty percent of the project money shall be used for projects that involve road maintenance or obliteration, or the restoration of streams and watersheds. These changes are designed to encourage the development of projects that foster resource stewardship. To provide the counties that elect to participate in projects a wider range of choices, we have added a title III to the bill. Under the provisions of title III, counties may choose to invest their project money in a list of authorized uses including: (1) search, rescue, and emergency services; (2) community service work camps; (3) easement purchases from willing sellers to provide access to public lands; 94) forest related educational programs; (5) local fire prevention and fire risk reduction planning activities; and (6) community forestry projects. These projects would still be developed and recommended through the local resource advisory committees established in title II of the bill. They will function much as they do in title II, except that the projects will not require the approval of the Secretary, as would title II projects. Also, under the specific terms of section 102(d)(1)(B) and section 102(c)(1)(B) counties could split their project funds between titles II and III as they choose. We have also added a new title V to the bill to remedy a serious problem caused by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 involving the sharing with the states of onshore mineral revenues and revenues from geothermal steam. Prior to the 1993 act the federal government and the states split these revenues on a fifty-fifty basis. The 1993 act requires that the federal government deduct its previous years expenses for administering these programs from the receipts before the fifty-fifty split is made. This requirement has proven very difficult to implement due to general sloppiness of federal accounting systems. The federal agencies and the states have become involved in numerous disputes over the federal government's calculation of its administrative expenses. In light of these problems, with the advice and the assistance of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, we propose to return to the pre-1993 system of calculating shared receipts. Finally, we have added a conforming amendment in section 4 of the bill. This amendment specifies that payments required by this bill would be included in the calculation of the payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) payments that each state receives. This change will result in payments under this act being treated in the same fashion as other natural resource payments to the states. I appreciate the cooperation of several of my colleagues in developing the changes that went into the manager's amendment. I particularly want to thank Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman and their staffs for their assistance in putting together the manager's amendment. The bill is a much better product because of their contribution.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes it is our intent that the Secretary would select an individual from each example group in each of the three categories of community interests listed in section 205(d) when representatives of that group are interested in the management of the public lands overseen by a particular advisory committee.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased my colleague from Oregon has joined with me on the floor as we now consider, by unanimous consent, a key piece of legislation on which he, Senator Wyden, and I have been working. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 520, S. 1608.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a period of morning business for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I further ask unanimous consent the two leaders have an extra 10 minutes each for purposes of morning business during tomorrow's session.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 11 a.m. on Thursday, September 14. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 4444, the PNTR China legislation as under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand H.R. 2090 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of up to 10 minutes of Senator Grassley and up to 60 minutes of Senator Jack Reed on the subject of China.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. For the information of all Senators, at 11 a.m. tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the China PNTR legislation. Under the order, there are 10 amendments remaining for debate and up to 6 hours of general debate remaining on the bill. Those Senators with amendments in order are encouraged to work with the bill managers on a time to debate those amendments. Senators should be aware that votes will occur throughout the day. As a reminder, Senators should be in the Senate Chamber by 9:30 a.m. tomorrow to proceed as a body to the Hall of the House of Representatives at 9:40 to hear an address by the Indian Prime Minister.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed en bloc to consider the following naming bills reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee: Calendar No. 719, H.R. 1959; Calendar No. 720, H.R. 1729; Calendar No. 721, H.R. 1901; Calendar No. 722, H.R. 4608. I further ask consent that the bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to any of these bills appear in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on September 13, 2000, by the President of the United States: Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management (Treaty Document No. 106-48); I further ask that the convention be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, soon the Senate will take up S. 1938, the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 1999. It is designed to set a new course for the Forest Service in determining fees for forest lots on which families and individuals have been authorized to build cabins for seasonal recreation since the early part of this century. In 1915, under the Term Permit Act, Congress set up a program to give families the opportunity to recreate on our public lands through the so-called recreation residence program. Today, 15,000 of these forest cabins remain, providing generation after generation of families and their friends a respite from urban living and an opportunity to use our public lands. These cabins stand in sharp contrast to many aspects of modern outdoor recreation, yet are an important aspect of the mix of recreation opportunities for the American public. While many of us enjoy fast, off-road machines and watercraft or hiking to the backcountry with high-tech gear, others enjoy a relaxing weekend at their cabin in the woods with their family and friends. The recreation residence programs allows families all across the country an opportunity to use our national forests. This quiet, somewhat uneventful program continues to produce close bonds and remarkable memories for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but in order to secure the future of the cabin program, this Congress needs to reexamine the basis on which fees are now being determined. Roughly twenty years ago, the Forest Service saw the need to modernize the regulations under which the cabin program is administered. Acknowledging that the competition for access and use of forest resources has increased dramatically since 1915, both the cabin owners and the agency wanted a formal understanding about the rights and obligations of using and maintaining these structures. New rules that resulted nearly a decade later reaffirmed the cabins as a valid recreational use of forest land. At the same time, the new policy reflected numerous limitations on use that are felt to be appropriate in order keep areas of the forest where cabins are located open for recreational use by other forest visitors. Commercial use of the cabins is prohibited, as is year-round occupancy by the owner. Owners are restricted in the size, shape, paint color and presence of other structures or installations on the cabin lot. The only portion of a lot that is controlled by the cabin owner is that portion of the lot that directly underlies the footprint of the cabin itself. At some locations, the agency has determined a need to remove cabins for a variety of reasons related to ``higher public purposes,'' and cabin owners wanted to be certain in the writing of new regulations that a fair process would guide any future decisions about cabin removal. At other locations, some cabins have been destroyed by fire, avalanche or falling trees, and a more reliable process of determining whether such cabins might be rebuilt or relocated was needed. It was determined, therefore, that this recreational program would be tied more closely to the forest planning process. The question of an appropriate fee to be paid for the opportunity of constructing and maintaining a cabin in the woods was also addressed at that time. Although the agency's policies for administration of the cabin program have, overall, held up well over time, the portion dealing with periodic redetermination of fees proved in the last few years to be a failure. A base fee was determined twenty years ago by an appraisal of sales of ``comparable'' undeveloped lots in the real estate market adjacent to the national forest where a cabin was located. The new policy called for reappraisal of the value of the lot twenty years later--a trigger that led to initiation of the reappraisal process in 1995. In the meantime, according to the policy, annual adjustments to the base fee would be tracked by the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), which proved to be a faulty mechanism for this purpose. Annual adjustments to the fee based on movements of the IPD failed entirely to keep track of the booming land values associated with recreation development. As the results of actual reappraisals on the ground began reaching my office in 1997, it became clear that far more than the inoperative IPD was out of alignment in determining fees for the cabin owners. At the Pettit Lake tract in Idaho's Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the new base fees skyrocketed into alarming five-digit amounts-- so high that a single annual fee was nearly enough money to buy raw land outside the forest and construct a cabin. Meanwhile, the agency's appraisal methodology was resulting in new base fees in South Dakota, in Florida, and in some locations in Colorado that were actually lower than the previous fee. At the request of the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture in 1998, the cabin owners named a coalition of leaders of their various national and state cabin owner associations to examine the methodology being used by the Forest Service to determine fees. It became obvious to these laymen that analysis of appraisal methodology and the determination of fees was beyond their grasp, and a respected consulting appraiser was retained to guide the cabin owners through their task. The report and recommendations of the coalition's consulting appraiser is available from my office for those who might wish to examine the details. This legislation reflects the coalition's consulting appraiser's report and comments from the Administration and the appraiser they hired to review their appraisal process. This is highly technical legislation. Its purpose is to send a clear set of instructions to appraisers in the field and a clear set of instructions to forest managers to respect the results of appraisals undertaken to place value on the raw land being offered cabin owners. Additionally, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the cabin program continues long into the future, that it provides a fair return to the taxpayers, and continues to generate a profit for the Treasury. I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis for S. 1938 be entered into the Record following this statement.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to call attention to some unfinished business from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In this landmark legislation, Congress directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine to study medical nutrition therapy as a potential benefit to the Medicare program. In December of last year, the Institute of Medicine released their study. They found that nutrition therapy has been shown to be effective in the management and the treatment of many chronic conditions which affect Medicare beneficiaries, including high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart failure, diabetes, and kidney disease. They also found that Medicare beneficiaries undergoing cancer treatment may benefit from nutrition therapy aimed at controlling side effects or improving food intake. They recommended that medical nutrition therapy--with physician referral--be covered as a benefit under the Medicare program. I have been working with my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, for the last several years on medical nutrition therapy legislation. The bill we introduced establishes a new Medicare outpatient benefit that would allow our senior citizens to work with a registered dietitian or nutrition professional to learn how to manage chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease. This legislation, S. 660, has been cosponsored by 35 of our colleagues. Its House companion, sponsored by Representative Nancy Johnson, has been supported by two-thirds of the House Members. As Congress considers additional refinements to the Balanced Budget Act, we must be certain that we keep our focus on the beneficiary. In addition to providing health care providers with needed relief, we must seize the opportunity to give our Nation's seniors access to medical nutrition therapy. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Bingaman and I to take care of this unfinished business before this Congress ends. We must make certain that action on medical nutrition therapy coverage occurs this year. I hope my colleagues will join with me on this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with my colleague, Senator Crapo a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the Bureau of Reclamation's interests in portions of the Ridenbaugh Canal system of the Boise River to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. The public comment period for the National Environmental Policy Act process has not been completed, and it is my intent to request a Committee hearing to discuss any issues concerning this transfer. Thus, any parties interested in this matter will have ample opportunity to express their concerns related to title transfer. The transfer of title is not a new idea. Authority to transfer title to the All American Canal is contained in section 7 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928. General authority is contained in the 1955 Distribution Systems Loan Act. Recently, Congress passed legislation dealing with a transfer to the Minidoka Irrigation Project and the Burley Irrigation District. The Nampa Meridian Irrigation District diverts water from the Boise River into a system of canals and laterals known as the Ridenbaugh Canal system for delivery to lands in the district and provides drainage for district lands. Since 1878 when the Ridenbaugh Canal was first constructed, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has been responsible for operating and maintaining the delivery and drainage system, and all project costs have been paid to the federal government. Reclamation's interests consist of only five percent (5%) of the canals, laterals and drains and associated fee title and easements in their delivery and drainage systems. These segments were constructed for the delivery and drainage of irrigation water. The purposes and uses of Reclamation's interests in these segments are to access, operate, maintain, and repair Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's irrigation and drainage systems. Reclamation has never operated or maintained any portion of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's delivery or drainage systems. This project is a perfect example of the federal government maintaining only a bare title, and that title should now be transferred to the project recipients who have paid for the facilities and interests of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for a few moments this morning, before we get on with the debate on PNTR, I want to deal with an issue happening in New York City right now. Our President is up there at the United Nations Millennium Summit. Mr. President, there is something going on on the side. In a back room, the President of the United States has been sitting down with a Saudi Arabian sheik. Here is why: He is begging. The President of the United States is begging a Saudi sheik to reach over and turn their oil spigot on a little more and increase their output of oil by about 700,000 barrels a day. Why? Because in the last few days, crude prices have spiked to an all-time high of $35.39 a barrel. Why has that happened? Because the market has analyzed that there isn't enough oil and the demand is ever increasing, and there is no strategy in this country to solve it. In May and June of this year, the President tried to cover his tracks by sending the Secretary of Energy to Saudi Arabia to beg, tin cup in hand. At that time, I think the press called it the ``tin cup energy policy'' of this administration. Well, today in New York City, behind closed doors, the President of the United States--this great and all-powerful country--is begging a small country in the Middle East for just a little more oil. Here is what the market analysts are saying. They have said that they fear that even the 700,000-barrel increase will not be enough to curb the jump in prices for crude oil contracts in the futures market. I mentioned yesterday they jumped to $35.39 a barrel. That is a phenomenal spike. This price is the highest since, of course, the battles of the Persian Gulf war of 1990. Why is this happening? Well, many of us stood on the floor in May and June and July and discussed the energy of our country and our energy needs. We were very frustrated at that time because we had 8 years of no energy policy. You know, Al Gore has been OPEC's best friend. There is no question about that. This administration and Vice President Gore, during their tenure in office, have allowed domestic oil production to drop by 17 percent and oil imports to go up by at least 14, and maybe as high as 20 percent. Oil imports averaged about 56 percent of all of our consumption, and now they are predicted to be well over 64 percent in the year 2020. Of course, there is a simple reason for that: For 8 long years, this administration has had no policy. Let me tell you what Vice President Al Gore has said. He says he wants to increase the use of natural gas, although it has nearly quadrupled in price. Yet he wants to cancel existing leases. Here is his quote: I will do everything in my power to make sure there is no new drilling, even in areas already leased by previous administrations. Here is a man asking to be President of the United States; yet he is out in the field today campaigning and saying: I guarantee you there will be no more increased production in this country, while his President, behind closed doors in New York, is begging a foreign nation to open its valves and increase production. Does it make any sense for this great Nation to be on its knees begging Arab sheiks of the OPEC nations to increase production while we go around saying we are going to decrease production? During the Clinton-Gore administration, there has been no energy policy, no domestic oil or gas exploration or production--in 8 long years. No new oil refineries. In fact, because of a lack of policy and compliance with the Clean Air Act in this country, in the last 8 years, we have closed 36 oil refineries. That is a staggering amount. We have closed 36 oil refineries in the past 8 years. There is no new use of coal. EPA has tried to shut down coal fired plants and are now suing some in the East because they don't think they are in compliance with certain standards. There is no new nuclear power. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. We have tried here to solve the gridlock over the production of energy and electricity by nuclear power, only to have items vetoed time and again by the President. Now, yesterday, the President said oil prices are too high. Gee whiz, Bill, where have you been all summer? You're darn right they are too high. You have done nothing about it nor has your Vice President, except to say we will shut down production. He even went on to say that it will impact not just America but it could result in a world impact, and it could result in the specter of a recession here or abroad if oil-producing countries do not raise production to bring down soaring crude prices. Well, what about production in our country? What are you doing here, Vice President Gore? I will tell you what you are doing here. You are saying: I am not going to allow new drilling; I am going to shut off the areas where you can drill. I don't want to see more production in this country. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Here is Gore's new energy plan: Don't develop proven domestic energy; Give $75 billion in new subsidies for new renewables and new technology. OK. Homeowner in the Northeast: You are just about to see your costs for heat this winter go up 35, or 40, or 50 percent. The message to you, homeowner, in the Northeast is: Vice President Gore is going to invest $75 billion in subsidies and in new renewables, and in 10 or 15 years you can put a solar cell up or we can put a wind machine out on the Adirondacks, and somehow we will generate this new abundance of energy. That is the answer for the problem today. That is the answer you are being given. That will not work tomorrow. It will not work a week from now. I support renewables. We ought to clearly drive ourselves in that direction as best we can. But my guess is when what is going on today translates into the price of gas at the pump, and when the oil truck backs up to your home in New York or Connecticut this winter and sticks the hose in the oil barrel and starts cranking in the fuel oil that will heat your home, and it is going to double or triple your fuel oil costs, if it is available, who are you going to blame? Who are you going to blame because of this dramatic increase? My suggestion is that fingers deserve to be pointed to an administration that has had no energy policy, has worked to shut down all increased production, and, in fact, in a rather swaggering way has suggested we will not drill anymore. We will not produce anymore. It is somehow environmentally wrong to produce oil and energy in this country. That is a fundamentally critical thing with which we have to deal. We have attempted to deal with it in the Senate. We have dealt with these issues on a regular basis. We have introduced legislation to bring about that increased production. We have suggested that these great oil reserves we still have remaining in our country be allowed to be drilled, and in an environmentally safe and sound way, that we bring our production back on line. In the nonlarge oil producing segment of our country, a segment called stripper wells, oftentimes owned by farmers and ranchers through the Southeast, the South, and the upper Midwest--if we, by tax incentives alone, would guarantee them a margin, we could see a million barrels a day come back on line--our oil; money that stays in our country and doesn't go to Saudi Arabia to buy the limousines or the G-4 jet airplanes of the OPEC sheiks. What is wrong with that policy, Mr. President? What is wrong with that policy, Mr. Gore? Is it wrong to support domestic production at home? I think not. This is an issue we will spend a good deal more time with in the coming days. But I thought with this press release coming out of New York today, and we know the President has been talking with the Arab sheiks yesterday, Mr. President, Mr. Bill Clinton, quit begging. Don't beg these nations to produce. Turn our producers loose. Let us produce. Let us become the great producing country again. Let us be the masters of our own destiny. Don't apologize. And don't suggest to somebody this winter when their heating bill goes up that it is some Arab sheik's problem, that they shut the oil off. No. In the last 8 years, you have shut the oil off, Mr. Gore. You have shut the oil off, Mr. Clinton, because your policies have denied production and brought production down at a time when we were increasing consumption and were the beneficiaries of that consumption by an ever increased standard of living in our country. I am not ashamed, nor will I apologize for the citizens of my State because they want to be consumers. But I will be angry about a government that denies the kind of production that keeps the strong economy. And that is exactly what is going on. In our great country today, the only energy policy that exists in the Clinton/Gore administration is a policy of begging, begging the producing nations of this world to please turn on the valves and give us a few more barrels of oil in hopes that it will drive the price down. The analysts say it won't. This winter, as we grow increasingly cold, I am very fearful the citizens of the Northeast and in other cold areas, especially those who still use heating oil for their space heat, will find the price tag getting even higher, and my colleagues will be on the floor asking that we offset that with Federal tax dollars. I will not blame them for asking that. But once again I will ask: Where was Mr. Gore? Where was Mr. Clinton for these 8 long years when they knew the day would come that there would be no oil to burn and we would have to beg to get oil? I yield the floor. I see the principals are on the floor to continue the debate on PNTR with China. I hope we can move that expeditiously today. Thank you.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for as much time as I consume.