Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I inquire, is there currently business before the Senate?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor once again today, as I have on three different occasions over the last 2 weeks, to visit with my colleagues about the State of the U.S. energy market and what is happening out there that I am afraid some of my colleagues are not yet understanding in a way that will cause them to act to help us shape a national energy policy for our country. When I was on the floor of the Senate 2 weeks ago, I mentioned that gas at the pump in California had hit $2.25 a gallon. A few days later, I announced that gas had hit $2.50 a gallon in the State of California. Yesterday, gas hit over $3 a gallon in the Los Angeles market--a historic high not only for this Nation but most assuredly for the State of California. In our State of Idaho--I say ``our'' State because my colleague, Mike Crapo, is presiding at this moment--in some instances, gas has gone over $2 per gallon. For those of us who travel the miles across Idaho to get from one small community to another, that begins to have a very real impact upon the ability of our citizens to simply move across the State of Idaho, let alone those businesses and industries that use large volumes of chemicals, gasoline, and diesel for the conduct of their businesses. So while I was accused by some of our folks on the other side of being a little bit too much of an alarmist a week ago in speaking about this, I will simply hold my tone down today. But I have to think that the average consumer who swiped his credit card with a $50 limit and found out that before he could get his SUV filled, he had ran out the limit of the credit card and had to swipe it one more time because the gas pump shut down got a very rude awakening this week in the Los Angeles basin. Who ever thought it would cost $45 or $50 to fuel your automobile? That is what it is costing today. I said a couple weeks ago that the average citizen this fiscal year would spend $300 to $500 just for gasoline than a year ago. I need to update that a little bit. Now we are up to about $560 instead of $400. That has happened just within the course of a week and a half. Yet, the Senate still cannot get its act together. It cannot produce a national energy policy that we have been debating and refining in this Chamber and in the appropriate committees for the last 5 years. Somehow it just isn't quite perfect. In the course of those years, we quit producing as a country. We kept demanding and growing, and our growth, in large part, is based on surplus energy that was built into our system over the last two decades. But as our economy comes back on line, that surplus is gone. Let's remember what happened at the last peak of an economic cycle in the State of California, when the State of California went dark, and businesses and industries had to curtail production because they didn't have electricity--or very little--or it wasn't reliable or stable. Have we done anything to correct that, to create sustainability and reliability in the system? The answer is that we have not done anything. We have debated it loudly and clearly, but we really could not get our political act together to solve the problem in California and the region. We have not drilled any more oil wells in the United States. We have not been allowed to drill where we think there are literally billions of barrels of oil in Alaska because somebody said it might damage the environment. Yet we have already proved by drilling in Alaska that proper procedure in the 1970s didn't damage the environment. Our abilities now, in 2004, are so much enhanced that we know we will not damage the environment. But it became the clarion call of the environmental movement in this country not to touch ANWR. So, politically, we did not; we could not. The votes simply were not here to do it. What would happen today if ANWR were developed and the production was on line, even though it wasn't pumping at the moment? We could say to OPEC, to other countries around the world, that we are going to turn the valve of ANWR on and flow the oil through the pipeline of Valdez and fill our tankers and bring them down to Anacortes, WA, and to the refineries of California, and begin to refine the oil of Alaska. I bet OPEC would scratch its head and say: Maybe we better change our ways a little bit. Maybe getting $30 to $35 a barrel is not realistic because we forced the United States to be less reliant on us and more reliable on themselves. It is called fungibility in the oil market. We cannot do that today because politically we have not been allowed to do the right kind of exploration and environmentally sound development in Alaska. We are hoping this economy keeps going, keeps growing, keeps rebounding the way it currently is, but what is putting a phenomenal amount of pressure on it at this moment in the form of greater input costs into almost every aspect of the economy is the cost of energy, whether it is the average home and consumer or whether it is our farmers in the State of Idaho who this past February, when they sat down with their banker to develop their line of credit for the year, penciled in an energy cost and a fertilizer cost, little knowing what they penciled in was 30 to 40 percent inadequate from what it was actually going to cost them. They have today found out their fertilizer costs doubled. Why? Because phosphate is made from natural gas, natural gas processes, and natural gas went from $2.50 a million cubic feet to $6.50 to $7 a million cubic feet, and the cost of fertilizer went through the roof. So fertilizer got applied less in some areas and where it did not get applied, the farmer rolled the dice and gambled, hoping somehow the value of the crop produced would increase 25, 30, or 40 percent, which, of course, won't happen. That is agriculture alone. What about the chemical industry? What about those kinds of industries up and down the east coast of America that produce the chemicals for this country? Many of them have already shut down, and they have taken their production to Europe. It has cost us thousands of jobs. I must tell those men and women who are out of work: Why don't you pick up the phone and call your Senators and ask your Senators how they voted on the Energy bill, and if they voted no, why did that vote cost you your job because the cost of energy went through the roof and your company had to shut down. That is, in part, the reality America is facing today. While all of us are excited about the growth of the economy and the thousands of new jobs that are being created at this moment, there is a cloud hanging over Wall Street and the investment community. They openly say that cloud is the unpredictable high cost of energy and the impact it will have on certain segments of the economy that are highly dependent upon it. What did we do when we crafted S. 2095? We built a broad-based, incentivized bill that said we ought to be producing in all segments of the energy market. It was not selective. It said America would grow and America would prosper with an abundance of energy at a reasonable price that was reliable and available. Therefore, our bill, S. 2095, encouraged domestic oil production, encouraged the development of more natural gas, encouraged the building of necessary infrastructure, such as the Alaska natural gas pipeline. Oh, I didn't tell you? We are pumping trillions of cubic feet of gas back into the ground in Alaska as we speak from the currently developed oilfields. Why? Because we cannot get it to the lower 48. We produce it, it comes up, we segregate it from the oil, we put the oil in the pipeline, and we pump the gas back into the ground. So we said: Why don't we build a pipeline? And industry said: Because it is so expensive, we cannot afford to build it unless you give us certain consideration. This week we gave them that consideration. We gave them the tax incentives to build the pipeline to bring the gas to the lower 48 to supply our business and industry, to bring down the cost of fertilizer, and S. 2095 did just that. It encouraged and incentivized the building of a natural gas pipeline out of Alaska. Our Senate bill encouraged use of renewable fuels, such as ethanol. It encouraged more renewable energy. Wind--you bet we are all for wind and more of it as a generating source for electricity and photovoltaics, energy cells, taking the energy of the Sun. This bill promotes that where it can fit and does work. We have strengthened the future of nuclear energy as an option by, again, trying to incentivize getting into what we call generation 4 reactor development. Our State of Idaho might well be the place where a prototype is built. This week in the State of Idaho, five representatives from five different nations around the world visited our national laboratory as the site where a new reactor prototype will be built, called generation 4. It is a high-pressure reactor, safe to operate, that can produce a phenomenal abundance of nonemitting electricity and even hydrogen for a hydrogen economy and a hydrogen fuel cell transportation market. That is in S. 2095. That is part of what we have been working on. Clean coal technology, that phenomenal energy resource of the Senator from Kentucky, who is sitting here beside me at the moment, could be used without the risk of pollution. There is hydrogen promotion, hydrogen fuel cell development, and I spoke of the generation 4 reactor and the production of hydrogen. Of course, there is conversation, using energy more wisely so we use less, research and development in new technologies, mandatory reliability rules for the electrical grid that moves our electricity across the country, the promotion of advancement and the expansion of that grid. That is the full package. It is also very interesting that when George Bush was President-elect George Bush, before he had taken the oath of office, I will not forget meeting with him for the first time just down the hall from the Senate Chamber in the office of the majority leader of the Senate. He said: My most important priority beyond education, the economy, and tax cuts to get the economy going again will be a national energy policy. At that time, he said: I will task the Vice President to put the best minds in the country together and make recommendations to you, the Congress, to develop a national energy policy based on what we see is necessary in the market. Our President did that. It is interesting that a lot of people criticized him for it: Gee, who was that who was meeting with you? Did they meet behind closed doors? What did they recommend? And all of that. They recommended a first-class list of things to do and what I have mentioned. What is embodied in S. 2095 is, in large part, what the President of the United States recommended to us as a national energy policy. Why isn't it law? Why hasn't this country turned toward producing energy instead of simply consuming and being more reliant on a foreign producer than a U.S. producer? Because this Senate could not get its act together. It is not big oil you ought to be blaming anymore, it is big Government and big politics. It is the politics of energy, it is the politics of the environment, and it is the denial of the responsibility that every Senator in this body has to the home folks, to the consumer, to the producer, to the farmer, to working men and women who are now paying more for energy than at any other time in this Nation's history. If you don't think $3 a gallon for gas at the pump in the L.A. basin does not have an impact on the economy of this country, then think again. If you think $2 a gallon for gas at the pump in Idaho today does not have an impact on the consumer, does not have an impact on the farmer, the producer, the working men and women, then think again. Our economy is a whole. It is just as I said, and if that average working family has to spend $400, $500, $600 or more or $1,000 or more a year on energy, that is $1,000 less they have to put food on their table, buy clothes for their kids, or even go out in the evening and have a dinner. It is that extra income that rolls across America that makes this country and this economy as strong as it is. When it is going to an OPEC nation to pay for the oil for the gas or the oil we burn here instead of going to our own producers, somehow that just is not right. But that is exactly what we are doing today, and we are doing it for one simple reason alone: Because politically we could not function. Politically we did not get our act together. Many of us tried. We produced a bipartisan bill, but it was not quite perfect for some. Now the tragedy of that story is that the American consumer pays an unprecedented price. That is the bad news. There is a glimmer of good news. In a bill that we passed this week, we passed a piece of this energy bill. We passed the tax incentives. A couple of Senators came to the floor and said: Oh, all that money is just being given to big oil, which is a big rich industry and shame on you for doing that. Do my colleagues know what the rate of return on investment in the oil industry was last year? Mr. President, 6.3 percent. Banking was 19.5 percent. Starbucks was 8 percent. In other words, it was more profitable last year to invest in a Starbucks coffee shop than to invest in a major oil company. Why? Cost of production, Federal regulations, Clean Air Act, all of those Government hurdles that the oil industry has to jump over that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a new refinery online or to bring a new oilfield into production. So good money just does not go there when money can go elsewhere with less risk to make greater return. That is what we passed this week. With the tenacity of the leadership, we got it through. That is a piece of a total picture of getting this country back into the business of producing. Somebody said, well, we could tap SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the salt domes down in the south where we store crude oil in the case of an emergency. So if we tap those, then we would have more oil and therefore more gas and the gas at the pump would cost less. What they did not say is that was the strategy that Bill Clinton used during a period of high gas prices and it changed the price at the pump by one cent. The reason it changed the price at the pump by only one cent is because our refinery capacity in this country is so limited today. Twenty years ago, we had 324 gas and oil refineries in this country. Today, we have 135 or 140. It was not cost effective to retrofit them and rebuild them to meet the standards of the Clean Air Act. They simply tore them down and they went away. So with our gas and oil refineries operating at 95- to 98-percent capacity, as we speak at this moment, adding more total supply does not change the equation. Well, would you leverage down the Saudis and OPEC? Probably not that much, because they know that ultimately we will have to come back to buy oil from them because we are not producing it for ourselves. So before we adjourn this final session of the 108th Congress, whether it occurs in late September or early October, there is one thing we ought to do, and that is we ought to pass a national energy policy for this country. It is written. It is refined. It has been through conference. It is laying at the desk of the Senate, ready for an up-or-down vote. It is that simple. It will not change gas at the pump overnight, but it will set us on a path of conserving, of producing, and of creating new technologies, alternatives, and fuel sources that are clean and nonemitting. Most importantly, it will say to the American consumer that the Senate of the United States on energy, for the first time, acted responsibly; instead of kowtowing to an environmental community or to another community of interests, it put it all together, it did the right things, and S. 2095 does, in my opinion, all of the right things and it puts us on a path of getting back to the business of producing, being more self-reliant on our own ability, less reliant and less dependent on nations elsewhere in the world that have become the primary producers of crude oil for the whole of the world. That is the mission we ought to be about, but somehow politically we just cannot get there. So pick up your phone, call your Senator. I have called mine. I am talking to my Senator, who is the Presiding Officer. He and I agree that it is time this country get back into the business of producing energy, and it is important that the Senate respond. I have one request of my colleagues this weekend when they are home. Take your car out, drive up to a gas pump at the local service station and fill it up and watch the face of the gas pump. Then watch your wallet because, if the tank is empty and you are filling it, it will drain your wallet, as it is draining the wallets of the working men and women of America. Shame on us for having allowed that to happen, but it is this Senate and its inability to get a policy together that has in large part caused the problem our consumers now face. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Rapid Bio- Terrorism Detection and Response'' on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen 226. Witness List: Panel I: Dr. Paul Keim, Director Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ; Dr. Harvey W. Meislin, Director, Arizona Emergency Medicine Research Center, Tucson, AZ; Dr. David A. Relman, Associate Professor of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; and Dr. Jeffrey Trent, President, Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing on Saving Lives: The Deadly Intersection of AIDS & Hunger.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 11, 2004, at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing titled ``Bogus Degrees and Unmet Expectations: Are Taxpayer Dollars Subsidizing Diploma Mills?'' (Day One).

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing entitled ``Breakthroughs in Alzheimer's Research: News You Can Use'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., in open session, to continue to receive testimony on allegations of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 11, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on Smoking in the Movies.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 11 at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to gain an understanding of the impacts and costs of last year's fires and then look forward to the potential 2004 fire season. The hearing will give all committee members a solid understanding of the problems faced last year and what problems the agencies and the land they oversee may face this next season, including aerial fire fighting assets and crew, and overhead availability.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 11, 2004. The purpose of this hearing will be to examine the conservation programs of the 2002 Farm Bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me pick up where the Senator from Mississippi left off. What he has been saying about the economy and the figures out there is certainly accurate. The gloom and doom story we have heard over the last 6 months has all of a sudden gone quiet. The reason for that is the very reason the Senator from Mississippi spoke of: the tax incentives we put into place, the investments that are beginning to work, and unprecedented levels of hiring and job creation are underway. There is something I come to speak about that is of growing concern to me, and I think to thousands of American consumers, if not millions, and the impact it could have on a growing economy, and that is energy and the cost of energy. Yesterday, I came to the floor to speak on that issue. The senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, came later to say I was unnecessarily, righteously indignant about the Energy bill. You are darn right I am righteous and sometimes indignant when the American consumer is paying $2 per gallon at the pump--and some more than that--and they should not have to be. But they are, and the reason is because the Senate has not acted. No, passing the Energy bill tomorrow is not going to bring the price of gas down at the pump. But if you are in a hole and it is getting deeper and you are still digging, you ought to stop digging. But we have not stopped digging. We have not put policy in place that would begin to fill in the hole that will get us into production and that won't be a major risk to this economy in pulling this growth down because the American consumer is going to have to rejuxtapose some of their budgets. If they are paying $400 or $500 a year more for gas at the pump, let alone the cost of electricity and home heating fuel, they are going to be spending less in the market, and that is just the consumer. I get righteously indignant when the farmer in Idaho--or in Nevada for that matter--goes to the bank and gives his budget or her budget for the year, and they have not factored in a 30- or 40-percent cost of energy because diesel fuel went through the roof. The bill--if we pass it tomorrow--won't make a difference. The bill will encourage production of domestic oil. It will encourage the development of more natural gas. It will encourage and incentivize the building of necessary infrastructure, such as the Alaskan natural gas pipeline. It will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol. It will encourage more renewable energy. It will strengthen the future of the nuclear energy option. It will promote clean coal technology. It will promote hydrogen as a new technology for surface transportation. It will promote energy efficiency. It will increase the R&D on a variety of technologies. It will establish mandatory reliable rules for our electricity grid. It will promote investment and expansion of electricity. No, it is going to take a while for this country to get back into production. But we have not placed the tools in the tool box to allow us to get back into production. So we have become increasingly reliant on foreign sources for our energy. On March 22 of this year, you were paying $1.74 at the pump. On April 4, you were paying $1.78. In May, you paid $1.84, and now you are paying $1.94--in some instances nearly $2, and in other States more than $2. Some are suggesting that we ought to quit filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that we ought to cut that off. That would not make a difference in the price of oil at this moment because we have lost the capacity to produce. We have to reinvest if we are going to gain that capacity. Yes, the Saudis are being a bit duplicitous. They said here is our baseline and what we want, and we only need to make $28 on our barrel to fund our country's needs. They are making well over $30 today. Finally, just yesterday, the Saudi oil minister said the OPEC producers ought to increase the official output ceiling. Well, that statement alone knocked the price of crude oil off $1 and, slowly but surely, that will be felt back at the pumps again. What that echoes is that we are not seeing the price of energy improve in our country or determining the future of energy. The Saudi oil minister, by his statement alone, is making that decision and fixing the price, or impacting the price at the pump. Why do we need a national energy policy? Here is another reason. From 1981 to 2003, we lost a huge chunk of our oil refining capacity. In 1981, we had 324 refineries. Today we have 149 refineries, and they are operating at between 92 percent to 94 percent capacity. The Clean Air Act, the cost of retrofitting, the regulations, and the ability to finance simply took us out of the market and brought down those refineries. My time is up. The reality is this Senate ought to vote on a national energy bill, and it ought to vote now so we quit digging the hole deeper. Put the tools in the tool box and get this country back into production. And you are darn right I am righteous about it because I don't think our consumers ought to have to pay the bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Montana. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona, in his amendment, suggests to those of us listening and to those who might be observing us on C- SPAN that the oil industry is the most profitable industry in the country and somehow we are subsidizing them beyond reality or respect. Let me tell you what the oil industry did this last quarter. Their net earnings went up .6 percent to 6.9 percent. That was their net earnings. It is much more profitable owning a Starbucks on the street corner than it is to own a major oil company in America today. He did not say that the profit margins of the banking industry are 19.6 percent return on investment. So let us get real and, most importantly, let us be honest. Let's talk about section 29, the synthetic fuels. What was just represented by the Senator from Arizona is not in this bill. What is in this bill, if one deals with synthetics, is there has to be a reduction in the stocks and the NOX by 20 percent or there has to be a reduction in mercury by 20 percent to qualify for the tax credits in this provision. That is the reality of what we are talking about. If we want to get America producing again, if we want to satisfy the consumer who in anger paid over $2 at the pump today, then we have to incentivize an investment community to get back into the business of producing. Fifteen years ago, there were 325 refineries in America. Today, there are less than 125. Why? Too much regulation, too much cost, going offshore. How do we get them back? Incentivize them to come home; incentivize them to begin to produce in this country. Because of Government regulations and costs, they either go offshore to produce or they quit producing. America's refineries today are at 94-percent capacity. What this tax incentive does is incentivizes our country to get back into the business of producing. Want to incentivize offshore deep oil drilling? When we did that for the gulf a decade ago, production went up 500 percent. Why? Because it was terribly expensive to drill out there, and so we said if they drill out there and if they find oil, they can write this off. Our country relies on almost 30 percent of our capacity now in the gulf and in the deep waters. It worked for America and it worked for America's consumers. So to suggest we are doing something wrong is not representing the reality of the energy sector of this country today as a piece of our economy and our willingness to incentivize it. That is why we are here. That is why this provision is in the FSC bill and that is why the McCain amendment ought to be rejected. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I want to echo the concerns my colleagues from Oregon and Montana have on this issue. Resolution of the Canadian softwood lumber dispute has gone on far too long. Meanwhile our domestic industry continues to suffer from subsidized and dumped Canadian lumber.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor not to point fingers or make accusations about the tragedy that occurred in Iraq and continues to unfold. So while we are focused on international affairs and what may or may not have gone on in the Abu Ghraib prison, what I am going to talk about for a moment is what the average American, taxpaying, consuming, voting public, has experienced this past weekend. They went to the service station in their local community and filled up their gas tank with the highest priced gas in the history of this country. They paid anywhere from $1.84 to over $2.50 a gallon, depending on where one lives. When that credit card or that cash was handed out, that American consumer had paid more for gas at that moment on that day than ever in the history of this country. Yet this Senate, embroiled in Presidential politics at this very moment, fails to deal with this issue. I am amazed that last month the American economy struggled along and created nearly 300,000 new jobs, and we may well end up the quarter with one of the strongest growth periods in the American economy than we have had in a decade, and yet in all of those struggles, the American economy is spending more for energy than ever in the history of this country. I have not heard one speech on the floor about blame big oil, and the reason I have not is because I think there are a lot of Senators who are hiding at this moment or not wanting to address the fact they voted down a national energy policy some months ago and denied the American consumer a progressive Government policy that begins to promote investment and development in the energy sector of this country. At the close of business on Friday of this past week, the futures for crude oil in some categories went to over $38 a barrel. That will translate down the road to nearly $3 a gallon at the pump in the United States. I bet I am one of the few who will come to the floor today and speak about the crisis in energy that is draining this economy while all of that money flows to the Middle East because we are so focused on the Presidential fingerpointing that is going on at this very moment. Why don't we fingerpoint at ourselves for just a little bit? Why don't we blame big government and big politics at this moment for the failure of the Senate to address and pass a national energy policy for this country? When we talk about growth and we talk about the average American family's needs, have we told the American family this year they are going to spend between $400 and $500 more for gasoline than they did a year ago? No, we have not told them that. I am telling them that today because that is what they are going to spend. They are also going to spend a great deal more for a lot of their consumer goods that are made with petrochemicals. Carpeting in our homes today is synthetic and made as a derivative of the hydrocarbons or petroleum. Paint, plastics, all of those kinds of products are critically important to the American consumer, and the base resource that makes them is petroleum. Yet this country has had a ``no development'' policy for well over two decades. We have run around and stuck our heads in the sand hoping that somehow we could just get through this while the world was becoming an ever larger consumer of hydrocarbons. We have good conservation policies in place, and we would have better conservation policies in place had we passed a national energy policy. We would have pro-production policies in place and we would be sending the economy toward producing once again had we passed a national energy policy. My guess is bids would have gone out for the development of an Alaska gas pipeline to bring billions of cubic feet of gas to the lower 48 had we passed a national energy policy. We would have the legitimate right to say to the consumer that we have done something for you. Oh, yes, we were asleep at the switch for a decade fighting over the environment and fighting over the politics of who wins and who loses in energy production, but we cannot even say that today. We cannot even say we did the right things. I was doing a radio talk show this morning and somebody said: Isn't this the President's fault? I reminded them that the first priority of the Bush administration when they came to office 3\1/2\ years ago was a national energy policy, and while the other side is trying to subpoena the records and pick the books and argue that this was somehow a clandestine gathering, what they failed to recognize is the multiple recommendations made by this study group, headed by the Vice President, was early on and was a priority of this administration. We took those recommendations with the work the Energy Committee has done in the Senate, under the leadership of Pete Domenici, and we crafted a national energy policy. It was not about who was a winner and who was a loser. It was about getting this country back into the business of production so the American consumer would not have to pay $2.50 a gallon at the pump for their gas. But, once again, we got embroiled in politics. Somehow winners and losers wanted to be picked by some. Somehow we could not touch the pristine environment of ANWR of Alaska to bring that oil south to the lower 48 and to give us leverage power in the world market to tell the world producers that we were not going to be held hostage by their restrictive production that would drive up prices. We did none of that. Even though a majority of the Senate-- Republicans and Democrats--voted for a national energy policy, a few dragged their feet, we missed that magic number of 60, and a national energy policy did not go forth. What did I tell that phone caller today when he said, Shouldn't we blame the President? I said, no, he was the first to lead us. We simply would not follow because, you see, our politics was better or smarter, and, in this instance, it might well have been dumber. So blame Congress and blame the Senate and check the voting records of your individual Senators to see where they were on the development of a pro- production, pro-conservation, multiple alternative, new technology energy policy for our country. As the summer goes on, all of our refineries are operating at peak capacity at this moment, but that which they are refining, nearly 60 percent is produced by a foreign country, and those foreign countries are raking in U.S. gold today in the form of U.S. dollars like they never have before. All of our money flows overseas instead of developing in this country and producing jobs and improving our economy. Call your Senator and say: Vote on a national energy policy. It is right there in front of you. Quit playing politics with this issue. I believe the American consumer grows angry that the price they pay at the pumps is the highest price they have ever paid for gas. This time they have only one group to blame, and that is the Congress of the United States, for failing, at the urging of the President and at the urging of consumer groups and all who have studied this issue over the years, they have us to blame because we could not produce a national energy policy for this country. It is big politics and a failing Senate. While we continue the debate about the tragedies of Iraq--and we should get to the base of that issue, let's not forget there are other issues in this country that are very important to job creation, to the long-term economic stability of our country, and one of those will be the cost of energy and the cost of input into the economy of this great country. Let's pass a national energy policy. Let's pass the tax incentive package that is within the FISA bill. Let's get at it, Senate, and do the work we were sent here to do and allow this country to get back into the production of energy so we can challenge the world market and provide our consumers with that which they deserve: an abundance of reasonably priced energy and a variety of alternatives to pick from in this great marketplace of ours. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Louisiana makes an excellent point. There will be a need for a prison to detain people. This is a very large complex. It is also phenomenally symbolic of the evil of Saddam Hussein where within those walls literally thousands of Iraqis were killed. It was known as the death center. Symbolically what we do is very important. Tragically, what we have done or allowed to happen is very important. I think what the Senator from Nebraska and I are saying is, let us look at the death chambers themselves and tell the Iraqi people those chambers will no longer stand. I believe that is an important expression. Words are one thing; actions are clearly another. I believe symbolically what we say today, or what the Senate of the United States could say and should say, is important.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today the Senator from Nebraska and I are introducing a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I will read it because I think it is appropriate at this time, when all of us are tremendously frustrated about what has gone on in a certain Iraqi prison. Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Abu Ghraib prison must be demolished to underscore the United States' abhorrence of the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq. Whereas the Abu Ghraib prison was used by Saddam Hussein to execute and torture thousands of men, women and children; Whereas Saddam Hussein and his Special Security Organization oversaw the execution of thousands of prisoners; Whereas Abu Ghraib prison is notoriously known as a death chamber by the Iraqi people; Whereas the Abu Ghraib prison is arguably the largest and most feared prison in the Arab world; Whereas it is widely known that one of Saddam's sons, in one day, ordered the execution of 3,000 prisoners at the prison; Whereas the recent reports of the atrocities and abhorrent mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison are un- American, do not represent our values, and have sent the wrong message about the United States intentions in Iraq; Whereas the American people will not tolerate the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners; Whereas the American people view this prison as a symbol of evil, and where past cruel torture and mistreatment occurred; Whereas the American people would like to rid the world of this evil place where past and, unfortunately currently reported mistreatment has occurred; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Abu Ghraib prison, also known as the Baghdad Central Detention Center, be completely demolished as an expression and symbolic gesture that the American people will not tolerate the past and the current mistreatment of prisoners. We are offering this sense-of-the-Senate resolution today because we believe it is a profound and clear expression of the American people's concern and it is a sense of this Senate that we do not accept the treatment that has gone on there of Iraqi detainees. I yield the floor now to my colleague from Nebraska for a similar expression, and I send this resolution, as proposed, to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his support of this effort.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to the Senator for a question.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nebraska and I be allowed to speak as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution honoring May as Older Americans' Month. I am here today to celebrate May as Older Americans' Month. Since 1963, May has been the official month during which we pay tribute to the contributions of our 47 million older Americans. It is during this month that we, as a Nation, recognize older Americans for their service, hard work and sacrifice that helped assure us the freedom and security which we continue to cherish. This year's theme of ``Aging Well, Living Well'' reflects the lifestyle and attitude of today's older Americans. Not only should we take this time to show our appreciation and respect for America's seniors, but also to acknowledge that seniors of today and tomorrow will continue making significant contributions to our communities through their wisdom and experience, in the workplace, in civic leadership and in our homes. They gave, they give, and they will continue to give to this country. I am committed to working hard on behalf of our seniors. As the Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, we have pursued an ambitious agenda. The committee has examined issues including the Medicare law, long-term care policy, internet fraud, Social Security, assistive technology, the Older Americans Act, and healthy aging. In addition, this year I believe we have special reason to celebrate. Last year, Congress passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. I am especially pleased that we are now able to provide prescription drug benefits to those seniors most in need. This is an important step in putting Medicare on a more modern and secure footing as the 77-million-strong Baby Boomer generation moves closer to retirement age. Our commitment to America's seniors must continue beyond this one month of special recognition. With re-authorization of the Older Americans' Act on the horizon, we have an opportunity to focus on the needs of today's seniors, and the challenges that the baby boomer generation will bring. It is also an opportunity to design an act that promotes seamlessness and one that works well with other programs and initiatives to promote non-institutional care, maximizing successful outcomes, and empower older Americans to optimize autonomy and independence and one that promotes ``Aging Well and Living Well.''. Seniors are living longer, healthier, and more productive lives than any other time in our history. In the tradition of Older Americans' Month, I am submitting a resolution in the Senate calling on the people of the United States to observe the month of May 2004 as Older Americans' Month and to encourage all Americans to promote awareness through ceremonies, programs, and other activities that promote acknowledgment, gratitude, and respect for American seniors. I ask all of you to celebrate with me Older Americans' Month this May.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. My guess is that most Senators understand the process and the procedure we are under, but there is a large body of interest that does not understand what we are doing at all. It is called the American consumer. I can put it this way: The minority is trying to wrestle control of the floor away from the majority and set their own agenda. That is one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is to create an environment of false hope for that consumer who went to the gas pump today and paid more for gas than he or she has ever paid in their life. I question the integrity of Senators who will argue and opine the problems of energy but set in motion a procedural event that denies us the opportunity to produce for the American consumer a national energy policy. So go home to your voters and tell them it is no longer big oil's fault, that it is no longer the nuclear industry's fault, it is the politicians' fault because consistently over the last 5 years Democrats and Republicans alike have denied the American consumer a legitimate, comprehensive policy for national energy. So we are now held hostage for some 60 percent of our consumption by a foreign interest. Or we are held hostage by an environmental lawsuit that denies access. Or we are held hostage by the bickering of States who cannot agree that a transmission line ought to cross their territory. Those are the realities of where we are today. We are going to tell the American farmers they are going to pay 30 percent more this year than they thought for input costs to produce their grains. But who is going to pay for it? The farmer can't. He is hardly breaking even. But the politician in the Senate has created the environment for that 30- percent increase in production costs. It is not the chairman of the Energy Committee, not this Senator who for 5 years has worked to build a comprehensive energy policy, but those who have decided they must have a small piece their way, and their way denies the American consumer the reality of energy. So the average household--if you are wealthy, my goodness, $300 or $400 more in costs; 5 percent of your income this year will go to energy. But if you are making $29,000 a year, 20 percent of your income will go to energy. If you are making $10,000 a year as an American, 40 percent of your income will go to energy. So let's not stand here and debate the small stuff. Let's say to the American consumer what is an honest statement, that the Senate has not been able to settle on the establishment of a national energy policy that would, had it been implemented, begin to hold down costs and bring production up and bring conservation up and improve the environment and do the very thing that quality energy has always done to the American economy and for the American worker: allowed them to be the most productive, most competitive of any economy and any workforce in the world. But today that is less the case. Today, the petrochemical industry shuts down and goes offshore because they can't afford to produce in this country. Today, in lieu of natural gas we are going to establish ports and liquefy somebody else's gas and bring it here on a ship. Shame on us for that silly attitude that the American politician has developed. Does he or she think the American consumer is going to roll over? I don't think so. I think that consumer grows angrier by the day; when they go to the gas pump, weekly, and all of a sudden it is not $1.50 for regular, it is $1.65, $1.75, $1.80. Last week it hit an all-time high. This week it will hit another all-time high. If you are out in California, you pay $2.50. If you are in Idaho, you are paying $2.00 for regular gas. Now let's talk about the House. Let's talk about our inability to get out to western gasfields. Let's talk about the unwillingness to bring down gas out of Alaska. What have we done? Through the Clean Air Act we said the only way you can meet air shed standards is to generate electricity by the use of natural gas. We saw those turbines begin to go in place over the last good number of years when it was $2.30 a million cubic feet. Now it is $5, now it is $6, and those turbines are shut down. Shame on us, and I do mean Senators. I do mean this procedure. I do mean this false process. Is there cynicism afoot? You know, there ought to be. The American consumer ought to grow progressively cynical--become the cynic, I should say, of the process that denies them reasonable high-quality energy. To the American producer, to the American farmer, to my farmers in Idaho--I know they are calling me. I hear them. They are frustrated and they are angry. They have a right to be. We will play this political game. I must tell you, shame on us because we cannot get it right and the vote today on the Daschle amendment will not get it right. Tragically enough, the vote today on the alternative that I and others have worked on collectively in a bipartisan way will not be allowed to get it right. If we fail, and if we go into the fall and gas prices keep ticking up and somebody over in the Middle East says, Got them where we want them, let's crank, I must say the American consumer has a right to grow angry and a right to be frustrated because their political process--and those of us who have been invested with the responsibility of making it work--have denied them reasonable, high-quality energy of the kind they ought to expect. Now they better start demanding it. I yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Change of Vote