Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as we tried to craft the UC, we gave this issue of the Schumer amendment 30 minutes. So I would hope we could keep in the spirit of 15 and 15 so we can keep ourselves on track this evening. So the opponents would have 15 minutes, as we finish fashioning this UC.

Mr. CRAIG. We are hoping that adds in.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much of that time remains of the window of 7 minutes for the Schumer side?

Mr. CRAIG. A total of 10.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask, consistent with the unanimous consent request, that we set the Schumer amendment aside for consideration of the Sununu amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. The Sununu amendment has 30 minutes equally divided allotted under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. CRAIG. It is now my understanding that Senator Schumer will close, and the 7 minutes remaining includes the 2 that had been allotted in the original UC.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 873

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, we now have the Sununu amendment with a minute allocated to each side for closing comments.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield 1 minute for closure to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are on the Energy bill at this moment and have put forth a unanimous consent that moves us forward. We have a finite list of amendments I will work with Senator Johnson on in the next few minutes. We are about to do a unanimous consent. Those who have amendments should come to the Senate so we can work out the time agreement as we work on the managers' package. The majority leader is committed to finishing this bill tonight. If we line ourselves up and move in reasonable order with those amendments that will need votes, we might get out of here at a reasonable time. Other than that we could be here quite late. I hope Senators who do have amendments remaining, and we have not worked them out, can work with us as we finalize the unanimous consent. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask the Senator to hold for just a few moments until we work out a unanimous consent of order. We are about there. We have two or three Senators ready to go. We know of your concern and interest and the amendment to be offered. If the Senator withholds for a few moments, we can do that.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly in opposition to the Schumer amendment. Since 1971, there have been more than 45 million successful shipments of radioactive materials. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tracks and licenses all of these statements of medical isotope production. The NRC takes its job very seriously. This is a phenomenally safe track record that we are involved in. My colleagues from North Carolina and Arkansas have talked of the tremendous importance of being able to have adequate supplies of radioisotopes. Doctors conduct 14 million procedures each year in the United States using medical isotopes to diagnose and treat cancer, heart disease, and other serious sicknesses. The Senator from North Carolina has clearly laid out why this language is in this bill, and it is important. Mr. President, hundreds, of thousands of Americans depend on medical isotopes to diagnose and treat life-threatening diseases. It is also a fact that we do not produce these isotopes in the United States. We must ship enriched uranium to producers in Canada and Western Europe that produce the isotopes and return them to hospitals in the United States. Yet some of my colleagues ask: Why must we ship these isotopes internationally at all? Does this pose security risks? My answer: An emphatic no! Let me explain why . . . It is understandable to be concerned about the shipment of enriched uranium outside of the United States. And, of course, I share your concern. But it is important to recognize that these shipments are safe and secure. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission tracks and licenses all of the shipments for medical isotope production. The NRC takes its job very seriously. The shipments are carefully tracked by the NRC and corresponding agencies in Canada and Western Europe throughout their journey. They are subject to the same sort of strict guidelines in these countries that they are under in the United States. Since 1971, there have been more than 45 million successful shipments of radioactive materials. Shippers, State regulators, government agencies, and international organizations carefully handle and track each and every shipment--time after time. The result: The isotopes can do what they are made for--fight deadly disease. Doctors conduct 14 million procedures each year in the United States using medical isotopes to diagnose and treat cancer, heart disease and other serious sicknesses. We must ensure a reliable supply of medical isotopes so that doctors can carry out these procedures. The diagnosis and treatment of diseases like cancer, heart disease and other dreaded diseases depend on radiotherapy using medical isotopes. Doctors and patients depend on a stable supply of medical isotopes. That supply depends on the assurance that these isotopes are transported safely and securely. And they are. But the NRC must have the tools it needs to carry out its mission. This bill before us today helps the NRC to effectively license these shipments so that supply of medical isotopes is there when we need them. I urge my colleagues to support this important and timely legislation as written, to insure a reliable supply of isotopes to help treat and diagnose heart disease; cancer, including breast, lung, prostate, thyroid cancer, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, and brain; Grave's Disease (hyperthyroidism); Occult infection (in AIDS); Parkinson's Disease; Alzheimer's Disease; Epilepsy; Renal (kidney) Failure; and Bone Infections. I yield the floor and ask my colleagues to oppose the Schumer amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will attempt to offer a unanimous consent now that will finalize action on the Schumer amendment and move us to the Sununu amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be recognized to offer his amendment No. 810 and that there be--there has already been approximately 30 minutes of debate on this. I ask for another 30 minutes, and I would hope that my colleagues would use it wisely and judiciously or we will be here until early tomorrow morning, that 30 minutes be equally divided in the usual form; provided further that following that time, the amendment be temporarily set aside for Senator Sununu to offer amendment No. 873, and that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form. I further ask consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the amendments in the order offered, with no second- degree amendments in order to the amendments, and with 2 minutes equally divided for closing remarks prior to each vote; provided further that following the vote in relation to the Schumer amendment, the Kyl amendment, No. 990, as modified, be considered and agreed to. Finally, Senator Bond will be allocated 7 minutes prior to the vote on or in relation to the Schumer amendment. That will come out of the 15 minutes allocated of the 30 for debate on the Schumer amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. That is the intent. It is just to secure for Senator Bond 7 minutes of debate on the Schumer amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before the Senator from Oregon speaks, could I ask what time remains on both sides?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I don't know that all has been said, but most nearly all has been said. Let me speak briefly about the Sununu amendment. If I have heard it once I have heard it a lot of times in the last few years: Oh, we need new technology. We need innovation. We need clean energy. All of those kinds of things are at the threshold of the American consumer's opportunity: Sequestration of carbon, new nuclear technology, biomass, hybrid cars--some of those are beginning to enter the market--coal gasification--here we have a very large part of our energy being supplied by coal; we want to clean it up so we can continue to use it--high, efficient natural gas turbines, hydrogen, and on and on and on. New technologies are wonderful, but sometimes it is very hard to get them started, get them into the marketplace, allow them to be mainstreamed, create the cost effectiveness, the duplication, and multiplying effects that occur in the marketplace. That is why, in working this major piece of energy legislation for our country, we looked at incentives. We also looked at assuring that we protect the American taxpayer, who is also now, because we failed over the last 5 years to develop an energy policy, being taxed at the pump higher than any of these incentives would ever tax them. Yet we have some who would suggest that this is simply the wrong approach--to add some incentive, to build guarantees, to do that which assures that we can mainstream a variety of these technologies, that we can become increasingly self- sufficient. The Senator from Tennessee is right, and he has explained it very well. Many of these are scored as zero, not because the loan has not been made but because the cost of the guarantee is paid by the person taking out the loan. So this is clearly, here, the right thing that is being done, and that does not mean that the Government of our country, our taxpayers, is ``off the hook.'' It doesn't mean that at all. It means right now they are on the hook and paying through the nose for high-cost energy because we have not done for the last 5 years what we are now trying to do in this bill, and that is to build a new marketplace, new opportunities, clean technologies, get them into the marketplace, get them working, mainstream them so America and American business can pick them up and make them available to the American consumer. I think it is a very important amendment. If you are for the Energy bill as it is before us, you must vote no on the Schumer amendment. It guts the very underlying premise of the bill. It is not a double-dip, it is not a triple-dip, it is a slam-dunk to defeat and destroy a very valuable piece of legislation. I hope my colleagues will oppose the Sununu amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I do apologize. I do know the difference, and I apologize.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would hope that timewise, all time could be used on the Sununu amendment, understanding there is still a minute to close at the time of the vote and that we can return now to the Schumer amendment. Senator Bond is on the Senate floor, and he could utilize his 7 minutes prior to Senator Schumer utilizing his 7 minutes in closure so we could bring these two amendments to a close and to a vote.

Mr. CRAIG. We have no objection. I yield back time on our side. Amendment No. 810

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are going to move as quickly as we can. It appears that we can complete all work on this bill tonight. We have a few remaining amendments. I am going to offer a unanimous consent request at this time and, hopefully, we can cut the time down from it, if our colleagues will expedite their effort on behalf of these amendments that are outstanding. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond be recognized in order to offer the Bond-Levin CAFE amendment No. 925; provided further that the amendment be set aside and Senator Durbin be recognized immediately to offer his CAFE amendment No. 902; provided further that there be 80 minutes of debate total to be used in relation to both amendments, with Senators Bond and/or his designee in control of 40 minutes, and Senator Durbin and/or his designee in control of 40 minutes. I further ask that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Bond amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Durbin Amendment, with no second degrees in order to either amendment prior to the vote, and with 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the second vote.