Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is absolutely right. Energy should not be on an Internet tax bill. But if you want to vote for energy this year, if you want to go home to your consumers and say: I voted for a comprehensive energy bill, this may be the last chance you will have. The reality is, if you vote for cloture on Domenici and then you vote for cloture on McCain, Domenici falls. So weigh it out. Weigh the odds. What do you want to go home and tell the consumer, who today is paying the highest price for energy in the history of this country? The reason they are paying it is because we can't produce a bill and change our policies. We have an option. It is quite simple. We can vote for energy by voting for cloture. Then we can vote for McCain, because he is right, it should not be here. Domenici will fall. Then we get to where we ought to be today on an Internet tax bill. We didn't do this. Somebody else did this and fouled the process. Now let's clear it up. Clean it up. Vote for energy, vote for cloture.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with Senators Murkowski, Domenici, Burns, Roberts, Bunning, Cochran, Crapo, Bennett, and Reid, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 2004. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized. The National Geologic Mapping Act was originally signed into law in 1992, creating the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). This program exists as a partnership between the USGS and the State geological surveys, whose purpose is to provide the Nation with urgently-needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, and geology essential for all types of land use planning; as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMP contains three parts: FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the State geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. All three components are reviewed annually by a Federal Advisory Committee to ensure program effectiveness and to provide future guidance. FedMap geologic mapping priorities are determined by the needs of Federal land-management agencies, regional customer forums, and cooperatively with the State geological surveys. FedMap also coordinates national geologic mapping standards. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the States submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each Federal dollar be matched one-for-one with State funds. Each participating State has a State Advisory Committee to ensure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs as determined in the NGMA. The success of this program ensured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 and in 1999 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. To date approximately $50M has been awarded to State geological surveys through StateMap, and these Federal dollars have been more than matched by State dollars. In 2003, more than 450 new digital geologic maps were published by NCGMP, covering over 120,000 square miles of the Nation. These high quality geologic maps will be used by a very broad base of customers including geotechnical consultants, Federal, State and local land managers, and mineral and energy exploration companies. Information on how to obtain all of these maps is provided on the Internet by the National Geologic Map Database, allowing ease of access for all users. EdMap has trained over 550 university students at 118 universities across the Nation. The best testament to the quality of this training are its beneficiaries--an unusually high percentage of these students go on to careers in Earth Science, becoming university professors, energy company exploration scientists, or mapping specialists themselves. Their EdMap program experience provides them with a remarkable self-confidence, having completed a difficult and independent field mapping experience. At this very moment, a former EdMap student, Sergeant Alexander Stewart, is serving his Nation in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where his geologic mapping skills have been put to excellent use training his unit in all aspects of map making and interpretation. Mr. President, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate, usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so that safe, educated resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with Senators Murkowski, Domenici, Burns, Roberts, Bunning, Cochran, Crapo, Bennett, and Reid, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 2004. This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves to be reauthorized. The National Geologic Mapping Act was originally signed into law in 1992, creating the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). This program exists as a partnership between the USGS and the State geological surveys, whose purpose is to provide the Nation with urgently-needed geologic maps that can be and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, and geology essential for all types of land use planning; as well as providing basic scientific data. The NCGMP contains three parts: FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's geologic mapping program, StateMap--the State geological survey's part of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future geologic mappers at our colleges and universities. All three components are reviewed annually by a Federal Advisory Committee to ensure program effectiveness and to provide future guidance. FedMap geologic mapping priorities are determined by the needs of Federal land-management agencies, regional customer forums, and cooperatively with the State geological surveys. FedMap also coordinates national geologic mapping standards. StateMap is a competitive program wherein the States submit proposals for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A requirement of this section of the legislation is that each Federal dollar be matched one-for-one with State funds. Each participating State has a State Advisory Committee to ensure that its proposal addresses priority areas and needs as determined in the NGMA. The success of this program ensured reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 and in 1999 with widespread bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. To date approximately $50M has been awarded to State geological surveys through StateMap, and these Federal dollars have been more than matched by State dollars. In 2003, more than 450 new digital geologic maps were published by NCGMP, covering over 120,000 square miles of the Nation. These high quality geologic maps will be used by a very broad base of customers including geotechnical consultants, Federal, State and local land managers, and mineral and energy exploration companies. Information on how to obtain all of these maps is provided on the Internet by the National Geologic Map Database, allowing ease of access for all users. EdMap has trained over 550 university students at 118 universities across the Nation. The best testament to the quality of this training are its beneficiaries--an unusually high percentage of these students go on to careers in Earth Science, becoming university professors, energy company exploration scientists, or mapping specialists themselves. Their EdMap program experience provides them with a remarkable self-confidence, having completed a difficult and independent field mapping experience. At this very moment, a former EdMap student, Sergeant Alexander Stewart, is serving his Nation in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where his geologic mapping skills have been put to excellent use training his unit in all aspects of map making and interpretation. Mr. President, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate, usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so that safe, educated resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 5, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 155, to convey to the town of Frannie, WY, certain land withdrawn by the Commissioner of Reclamation; S. 2285, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a parcel of real property to Beaver County, UT, S. 1521, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to the Edward H. McDaniel American Legion Post No. 22 in Pahrump, NV, for the construction of a post building and memorial park for use by the American Legion, other veterans' groups, and the local community; S. 1826, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land in Washoe County, NV, to the Board of Regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada; S. 2085, to modify the requirements of the land conveyance to the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Research Foundation; and H.R. 1658, to amend the Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act to validate additional conveyances of certain lands in the State of California that form part of the right-of-way granted by the United States to facilitate the construction of the transcontinental railway, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Dick Bouts at 202-224-7545 or Amy Millet at 202-224-8276.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to S. 2290, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2004, or the FAIR Act. Last July, I voted to pass S. 1125, the original asbestos litigation reform bill, out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in an effort to fix the Nation's broken asbestos litigation system. And indeed it is broken. There have been too many losers under the current tort system. Claimants who are not sick receive disproportionate jury awards, severely sick claimants have been made to wait too long for compensation, companies are going bankrupt, jobs are being lost, and attorneys' fees are cutting away at nearly half of all money spent on asbestos-related litigation. More than 60 defendant corporations have declared bankruptcy due to asbestos-related litigation, leading to the direct loss of as many as 60,000 jobs, with each displaced worker losing an average of $25,000 to $50,000 in wages. Indeed, the system is broken. The constituents from my home State of Idaho have written to me asking me to fix the asbestos problem. The United States Supreme Court has called upon Congress to resolve the asbestos litigation crisis. And today, Senators Hatch, Frist, and others are calling upon the Senate to pass S. 2290 with the same purpose in mind. I commend these Senators for their work on this issue, especially Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who, through study, compromise, and countless hours of negotiations, produced a 250- page bill to resolve the asbestos litigation crisis. The actions of the Senator from Utah, from the beginning, truly have been those of a statesman. However, these good-faith efforts have not been matched by those on the other side of the aisle. In the original asbestos litigation reform bill, the trust fund was to be administered by the Court of Federal Claims, a special court relatively removed from the political realm. However, Democrats and labor unions wanted the fund to be administered by the Department of Labor, which has the potential to keep Congress and the American taxpayer on the political hook of paying for claims that cannot be paid by the asbestos trust fund. They wanted it, and we gave it to them. In the original asbestos bill, those on the other side of the aisle wanted to increase the price tag of the bill by raising the levels of compensation for asbestos claims. They wanted it, and before passing the bill out of committee, we gave it to them. During negotiations over S. 2290, they wanted new levels of payouts even higher than those agreed to in committee. Accordingly, half of the award levels have been increased by an average of more than 20 percent in S. 2290. They wanted it, and we gave it to them. In the ``Additional Views'' to the committee report on S. 1125, I and several fellow Republican colleagues voiced concern over the bill's unscientific medical criteria. In fact, in addition to several financial experts' testimony about the unpredictability of future claims into the fund, Dr. James Crapo, a hearing witness and medical expert who specializes in asbestos-related disease, wrote that: the other categories compensated by the bill . . . pay compensation for illnesses that, according to the clear weight of medical evidence, either are not caused by asbestos or do not result in a significant impairment. Simply put, when medical research concludes that a condition is not caused by asbestos, or is not an illness at all, medical research will not be able to predict the number of such claims. Despite these deep reservations, and in response to Democrats' demands, we agreed to criteria that ``erred on the side of being over- inclusive'' with regards to asbestos-related diseases. Many financial and medical experts suggested that as a result of doing so, the fund is likely to run the risk of insolvency as a result of paying claims for illnesses not caused by asbestos. They wanted it, and we gave it to them. They wanted it, and we gave it to them. Yet, they still withhold their support from S. 2290. As a result, not only has the integrity of the bipartisan negotiations been compromised, but the integrity of the asbestos litigation reform bill itself. Though no asbestos bill will be perfect, any reform measure in passable form will provide the certainty needed by all involved parties: businesses will know the amount of their liability and will be able to adjust accordingly in order to prevent bankruptcy, and, most importantly, injured workers will be adequately compensated by the companies that caused them injury. However, the certainty I held hope in only a few months back has largely been replaced by skepticism--skepticism in the solvency of the asbestos trust fund, skepticism in the handling of asbestos claims by the Department of Labor, and skepticism in the integrity of the medical criteria. However, my hope resides in further consideration and debate of the bill. The time for fair and efficient resolution of the asbestos litigation crisis is now, and I will vote for the cloture motion before the Senate. I look forward to any amendments that will strengthen the solvency of the bill by making defendant companies--not taxpayers--fiscally responsible for their actions, amendments that will restore integrity to the medical criteria section of the bill, and any others that restore S. 2290 to its principled purpose. Whatever a Senator's position on the bill may be, the issue of asbestos litigation reform must be considered and debated. Let us not sit this one out. This one is too important to sit out.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I pay my respects to Ernie Hartung, the 12th president of the University of Idaho, who passed away last fall. I felt a special kinship to President Hartung for two reasons. The first was that we both came to the university as freshmen in 1965. He as a freshman president and I as a freshman student. As he often said, he considered himself to be a member of the class of 1969 because of that freshman connection. The second reason for our special kinship was that I served as student body president in 1968-69 and had a close working relationship with President Hartung. He was a tireless advocate for student involvement, and the students responded by becoming strong, vocal supporters of President Hartung. It is unlikely that any University of Idaho president ever generated the degree of grassroots student support that Ernie Hartung did. The best indication of this came on March 17, 1969. The university was facing a number of serious issues, and President Hartung had been publicly criticized by the Governor. In response, 4,500 students showed up at a campus rally on a cold, rainy night to voice their support for their university president. It was a remarkable showing of support for an extraordinary leader. Ernie Hartung had a significant impact on the lives of thousands of Idahoans. On April 24th, 2004, the University of Idaho will be honoring this leader and his contributions. I appreciate my colleagues joining me today while I acknowledge all that President Hartung did, not only for me but for thousands of other University of Idaho alumni and Idahoans. While we miss him sorely, it is comforting to know that Idaho is a better place because of Ernie Hartung.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, are we on particular legislation at this moment?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have come to the floor, as my colleague from Illinois did a few moments ago, to talk about the USA PATRIOT Act and where we are with this issue that the American people have recognized as important for a variety of reasons. We all know that following the attack on American soil on September 11, 2001, we produced the USA PATRIOT Act to allow the law enforcement and intelligence communities of this country to move forward and do a variety of things. For the first time, we stepped into some arenas of law that many citizens of our country looked at at the time and said, be careful if you go there for you may well be intruding upon what are fundamental and constitutional rights of privacy with the American people. I voted for the PATRIOT Act at that time, and I did so speaking to the fact that I thought it was necessary that we move expeditiously to allow our law enforcement community to operate for the purpose of national security. I said at that time that this was not a perfect law. In fact, 253 communities and 37 States later, representing approximately 43.5 million people, have passed resolutions opposing or expressing concern about the PATRIOT Act. Groups as politically diverse as the ACLU and the American Conservative Union endorse changes in the law. In his State of the Union Address, the President called for reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. Given the bipartisan opposition to the law at this moment as it currently stands, there are many of us who believe it is necessary to make some adjustments in the law as we move toward reauthorization. Congress, in fact, made oversight of the PATRIOT Act implicit by sunsetting over a dozen sections of the bill at the time of its passage. The Senator from Illinois and I drafted S. 1709 with this oversight in mind. It was drafted to clarify and amend in a minor way the PATRIOT Act's most troubling provisions so that the whole or even piecemeal repeal of the law would be unnecessary. It was drafted to safeguard the liberties of law-abiding citizens while preserving the law enforcement authorities essential to a successful war on terror. Late last month, however, the Department of Justice issued a letter objecting to the very legislation, objecting to it before there had even been a hearing on it. Specifically, they objected to the SAFE Act on grounds that it would ``eliminate'' some PATRIOT tools and even ``make it more difficult'' to fight terrorism than before enactment of the PATRIOT Act. Let me be emphatic: the SAFE Act in no way repeals any provision of the PATRIOT Act, nor impedes law enforcement's ability to investigate terrorism by amending pre-PATRIOT Act law. My name would not be on a bill that accomplished those things. What the SAFE Act does do is clarify and slightly modify several provisions, particularly those related to the use of surveillance and the issuance of search warrants, to restore the judicial oversight requisite to healthy law enforcement. Specifically, the SAFE Act would impose two reasonable safeguards on the use of roving wiretaps for intelligence purposes. Before the PATRIOT Act, roving wiretaps were only permitted for criminal, not intelligence, investigations. The PATRIOT Act authorized the FBI to use roving wiretaps for intelligence purposes for the first time. The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 further permitted the FBI to obtain ``John Doe'' wiretaps in an intelligence investigation without specifying either the target or the location of the wiretap. Law enforcement is only required to provide a physical description of the target, such as 5'7", Middle Eastern descent or something else equally as vague, so as to, in my opinion, be meaningless. In order to protect the private conversations of people wholly unrelated to the investigation, the SAFE Act simply requires that law enforcement specify either the target or the location of the wiretap and ascertain the presence of the target before initiating the surveillance. Far from eliminating the roving wiretap, S. 1709 only makes the requirements for a roving wiretap for intelligence surveillance conform to the requirements for roving wiretaps under the criminal code. Does this tie law enforcement's hands in the way the Justice Department so described it? Hardly so. In the case of sneak-and-peek warrants, before the PATRIOT Act, there was no statutory authority for delayed notice warrants for physical evidence, although covert searches of oral and wire communications for intelligence purposes were allowed. The Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of sneak-and-peek warrants for physical evidence, and the Federal circuit courts were divided on the issue. Despite this, the PATRIOT Act granted Federal law enforcement broad authority to obtain sneak-and-peek warrants for physical evidence where a court finds ``reasonable cause'' that providing immediate notice of the warrant would have an adverse result, including seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial,''--a very broad standard. The SAFE Act, our amendment to the PATRIOT Act, reasonably limits when a court may issue a sneak-and-peek warrant for physical evidence to situations where notice of the warrant would: (1) endanger the life or physical safety of an individual; (2) result in flight from prosecution; or, (3) result in the destruction of or tampering with evidence sought under the warrant. Though the Department of Justice argues that scenarios such as a suspect's associates fleeing, going into hiding, or accelerating their plots would be excluded from the sneak-and-peek authority, these clearly fall within the reasonable limits of the SAFE Act. The Department of Justice also misrepresents the authority of the sneak-and-peek provision when it says that the SAFE Act would ``restrict the ability of courts to extend the period of delay'' for a delayed-notice warrant. Although S. 1709 requires notice of a covert search within 7 days rather than a reasonable period, it authorizes unlimited 7-day delays if the court finds that notice of a warrant would continue to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual, result in flight from prosecution, or result in the destruction of or tampering with the evidence sought under the warrant. Far from restricting the courts, the SAFE Act restores what I believe is the proper level of judicial oversight in the process. I believe the Department of Justice also misrepresented the modifications the SAFE Act would make to section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which permits law enforcement to obtain a vast array of business records with minimal judicial oversight. Before the PATRIOT Act, FISA search orders were available for only certain travel-related ``business'' records--not library or personal records--where the FBI had ``specific and articulable facts'' connecting the records to a foreign agent. These orders are available for any and all records, including library records, by simply certifying that the records are sought for an international terrorism or intelligence investigation, a standard even lower than relevance. The court does not even have the authority to reject this certification under current law. Though the Department of Justice describes the SAFE Act standard as a ``much more rigorous'' standard, FISA search orders would still be available for any and all records, but only when the FBI has ``specific and articulable facts'' connecting the records to a foreign agent. Far from ``raising the standard'' to a new level, S. 1709 reinstates the proper pre-PATRIOT standard for obtaining a FISA order for business records, and even maintains the PATRIOT Act's expanded definition of business records. Likewise, the Department of Justice argues that section 5 of the SAFE Act would impose an ``entirely new limitation'' on the use of National Security Letters. Before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could issue a National Security Letter to obtain personal records by certifying that it had reason to believe that the person to whom the records relate is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. Current law allows the FBI to obtain sensitive personal records, without judicial approval, simply by certifying that they are sought for a terrorism or intelligence investigation, regardless of whether the target is a suspect. While national security letters are only to be used to obtain name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records, available information indicated that the Justice Department is using them to obtain other kinds of records, including library records. Contrary to the assertions of the Department of Justice, the SAFE Act maintains the greatly expanded definition of ``financial records,'' and even makes such records available without individual suspicion. S. 1709 only reasonably exempts libraries and Internet terminals from National Security Letter orders. While I am disappointed that the Administration has expressed disagreement with the SAFE Act, I view this as an opportunity to increase the public discussion on one of the most important issues of the day. I know Attorney General John Ashcroft. John and I are personal friends. I am not worried about how John Ashcroft will enforce the law. But administrations change. The law lasts, and it is imperative that it embodies a smooth balance of liberty and justice. I am not seeking to repeal any provision of the PATRIOT Act but rather to salvage it by making necessary, albeit minor, amendments to it in order to safeguard individual liberties while preserving the very important law enforcement authorities it grants. Privacy is a hallmark of our constitutional system--the right of the individual within that system--and what we attempt to do by the SAFE Act, S. 1709, is to assure that when we reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, we guarantee that those rights are preserved. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, education is the fundamental base that enables our youth to transition to adulthood. The basic principles students learn provide them with the necessary skills to become productive and responsible citizens. In Idaho we view education as an investment not to be taken lightly. It is essential our students are well prepared so that the journey through the halls of our schools will end at the doorway to success. The preparation for this passage is intense. Not only must our students understand the basics of science, civics, and communication, but they are expected to defend themselves in the face of peer pressure and poor choices. In order the achieve this, we look to those who serve on the front lines of our education system. It is our teachers who will help students aspire to greatness. In Idaho, our teachers do more than expected by expressing to our students the importance of giving back to our communities. They show our students an avenue through which to improve themselves and the cities and towns from which they come. Teachers who encourage community service ought to be thanked. I thank all the administrators, staff, and teachers in Idaho schools for helping our students visualize their self-worth, thus enabling them to achieve greatness. In addition, today I would like to single out one educator in particular for his dedication and commitment to our local community. Wiley Dobbs has served in nearly every level of the education system over his tenure in southern Idaho. From time spent as a student at Morningside Elementary school, to his current position as superintendent of the Twin Falls School District, Wiley Dobbs has had a positive impact on the lives of others every step of the way. The standard of excellence set by Wiley is one for which all Idaho educators should strive. Wiley began his higher educational endeavor at the College of Southern Idaho where he received an associates degree. He later went on to receive two bachelors degrees in social science and health and physical education from Boise State University. Wiley began his career as a teacher in Montpelier, ID who he taught five subjects and coached three sports. He then moved to Twin Falls and taught at both O'Leary Jr. High School and Twin Falls High School. During his time in the high school he taught courses in Government and English, coached wrestling, and worked toward receiving his master's degree in education from Albertson College of Idaho. After receiving his master's degree, Wiley made the transition from educator to administrator. Despite the shifting role, Wiley positive impact on students only improved. As principal of the Magic Valley Alternative High School, he increased enrollment from 40 to over 125 students in only 2 years. Wiley also served as Principal of O'Leary Junior High School in Twin Falls. His outstanding work with both the students and faculty in he southern Idaho school district was recognized not only by the local community, but by the state, as well. In 1999, the Idaho Associates of Secondary School Administrators, MetLife, and the National Association of Secondary Principals named him Idaho's Secondary Principal of the Year. In 2001, Wiley was named the State Middle Level Educator of the Year. Wiley's work is also recognized on the national level. His involvement on the Idaho Congressional Award Board has raised the number of Idaho recipients to one of the highest in the nation. Students receive the honor by registering on the national level, and then completing hundreds of hours of community service in four separate categories: volunteer public service, personal development, physical fitness, and expedition exploration. Those students receiving the Gold Medal will have completed at least 700 hours of community service over a 2-3 year period. Wiley has advised and helped approximately a third of Idaho's Gold Medal recipients since the beginning of his involvement in 1993 when he was named to the post by Congressman Mike Crapo. Wiley Dobbs has been the driving force behind the Idaho Congressional Award Program. He has inspired, motivated, and encouraged hundreds of Idaho's youth to receive the national honor. His efforts have solidified Idaho's presence in the national program, and it is his investment in Idaho's students that will benefit all our local communities. I hope all of us, especially those involved in our education system, will look to the example set by Wiley Dobbs. His leadership and dedication to our children are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have spoken in the last 3 days about the current price crisis this country is experiencing with the critical resource energy. The American consumer is going to the pump in their local community today to refuel their car and paying record high prices; in fact, the highest ever recorded on average in our history. I would hope they are beginning to ask the question why, why is this happening and why am I having to pay another $5 or $6 per tank of gas, an average of maybe $15 or $20 or $30 a month more. In fact, I and the chairman of the Energy Committee, Pete Domenici, and others, held a press conference to speak to the issue of energy and why the Senate was not yet debating a comprehensive energy bill that is ready for us to debate once again and vote on. At that time I mentioned the average consumer today will pay, as an individual, $300 or $400 more a year for the price of energy, and collectively, as a family, they may well pay more than that. When you consider their electrical bills and space heater bills, the average family is going to pay considerably more this year. That is money that won't come as a result of having a pay raise and, therefore, having the money to offset those costs. Those are dollars and cents that are going to come directly out of the family budget this year. It will have a substantial impact on that family's ability to do what they did a year ago, whether it was providing food for the table, clothes for their children, or maybe the family vacation, or the recreational value they place on a certain activity that would cost them a certain amount of energy. I mentioned some days ago that I think probably families are already, if they own a motor home, recalculating whether they will actually be able to take that home and go someplace in the country this summer because of the potential cost, additional cost that 15 or 20 cents on a gallon of gas will mean this year. Those are all very real issues and some that clearly this Senate ought to address. I have said for that average consumer who is asking the question why, I have an answer. The answer is that the Senate of the United States has refused to bring out and pass and set on our President's desk a comprehensive energy bill that addresses those and other issues that in the long term will get us back into the business of producing energy for our country and becoming less dependent on foreign supplies and, therefore, certainly dependent upon ourselves more than others. It is an important issue that we have before us today. We have even seen it now break into Presidential politics, as Senator Kerry speaks of ways he can propose to bring down those prices. I have noticed he has not talked about production. He has not talked about increasing production. So there are going to be a lot of schemes. I use the word ``scheme'' because some are scheming at this moment as to how they might turn this to their political advantage, tragically enough; that is, the price of energy at this moment. Why don't they just stop and ask the Senate why they can't pass a comprehensive national energy policy for our country? We have been 14 years without any new directions or new ideas as it relates to energy production, and it is clearly time we speak to that. There is a proposal that has just been brought forth. It is called the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act of 2003. Each time we see something like this as an idea, it is important that we put it in the right context. Each time a government agency investigates gasoline prices--and there have been 29 such investigations by Federal and State agencies over the past several decades--the findings literally have been all the same. The market controls the price of energy, not some unscrupulous producer. It is the market forces that ultimately produce the price at the pump. The purpose for antitrust law is to protect the interests of the consuming public, not to increase the profit of any level or type of distributions, which is what happens in the legislation I have mentioned, which is S. 1731. That particular legislation would try to dictate refiners' distribution practices. I don't think our Government ought to ever get into the micromanagement of a marketplace. Our goal-- and it always should be our goal--is to create transparency in the markets so all of the parties involve can understand them. As noted in a recent economic study on ``The Economics of Gasoline Retailing,'' a Dr. Andrew Kleit, professor of energy and environmental economics at Penn State University, puts it this way: There is a difference between protecting competition and protecting competitors. Protecting competition means moving to provide consumers with the lowest sustainable prices, not protecting the profits of any level of production or any individual firm. Professor Kleit's analysis shows that eliminating the ability of refiners to restrict where their brands can be distributed, as proposed in S. 1737, would likely reduce refiners' investment in distribution outlets and ultimately harm consumers. From a competitive point of view, Professor Kleit says, ``these calls [for this type of distribution concepts in legislation] are [clearly] misguided.'' The strategy at issue is the result of competition between various forms of distribution in gasoline marketing. This competition promotes efficiencies which benefit consumers by bringing products to market for less cost. My fear is S. 1737 would not protect competition, only some of the competitors. That is clearly where we ought not be going. But what I think S. 1737 really does is it tries to speak to a market today that is a product of Government interference in the past. By that I mean standards and new standards that do not allow the normal marketplace to flow and that, ultimately, confuse the process and create dislocations, whereas a more free market approach certainly would allow that to happen. As we have seen in recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has carefully studied many of the proposals about mergers within the industry. In many instances, the FTC has required companies to sell assets to new competitors as these mergers occur. Let me give some examples. For example, the Exxon Mobil merger in 1999 resulted in the largest retail divestiture in FTC history--the sale or assignment of approximately 2,431 Exxon Mobil gas stations in the Northeast and mid- Atlantic, some 1,740; California stations, some 360; Texas stations, 319; and in Guam, 12; and the sale of Exxon refineries in California, terminals, a pipeline and other assets. So my point is, while we may try to micromanage and use that as an excuse or an attempt to help the marketplace, what the FTC has done relating to these mergers has in part done that. In other words, we have given them the authority to do so. Similarly, when British Petroleum merged with Amoco in 1998, they agreed to make certain divestitures to free up more than 1,600 gas stations in 30 markets in order to satisfy FTC concerns that their merger would substantially lessen competition in certain wholesale gasoline markets. Let's stop passing the buck on energy prices. Let's stop attempting to tinker with the energy bill and apply untested concepts and theories in the hope that we can create the perfect bill while our citizens are being crushed by high energy prices. Let's pass the energy bill and implement the energy policies included in that bipartisan piece of legislation. Let's stop the partisan rancor and do what our constituents sent us here to do--protect their jobs, protect their quality of life, and protect their security by passing this energy bill. While many Senators may come to the floor well meaning in the next several months to find some political safe haven in which to address the issue of high energy prices, there really are not any. Nobody is scheming today. Nobody is glutting the marketplace. The reality is a problem of supply and demand. While I am quite sure you will have some State attorneys general out there calling for investigations, the problem is supply and demand. It clearly is that, and there is no other argument that can really fit or begin to explain why we have record high gas prices. This Senate needs to pass a comprehensive energy bill, and we have one. It is ready to come to the floor. We are being denied that opportunity to bring it to the floor. All I am saying is use due caution as it relates to all kinds of new ways to argue the problem in the marketplace. But when you don't have enough supply of product or crude to go around, when you have world demands and us now depending on a world market for our supply of crude, we have a problem. This Senate refuses to address that problem. I hope in the coming days as gas prices continue to spike, consumers will ask the question why, and turn to the Senate and say very simply: Do something. Pass a national energy policy. Put it on the President's desk and allow this country to get back into the business of production and meeting the supply to the market, instead of trying to find a scheme or another excuse that will only be a short, limited political ground on which to stand. I believe there is no place to hide today and no Senator can have that opportunity. The vote has been on the record. Let's change the record and improve the record by the passage of a national energy policy that will once again put our country in the business of energy production. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to speak for not more than 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 21st, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on implementation of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, and on policies related to the program. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics at 202-224- 2878.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have listened most seriously to the Senator from Iowa on the issue of the minimum wage. My guess is, before the legislative year is out, we are going to vote on this issue. I believe it is important the Congress express its will. Certainly the minimum wage is a part of the total economic makeup of our country, and we need to be concerned about it. When we are talking about welfare reform, we know good-paying jobs are a part of getting people off welfare. We also know creating an economic climate in which jobs can grow is another way of making sure we have good-paying jobs, be they minimum wage or slightly or substantially above. It is the whole of the economy that makes our country what it is. It provides for the middle class and the upper class and all of those others who have been the tremendous energy and engine of this economy for so long. The day before yesterday and yesterday, I came to the Chamber to speak about the ever increasing price of energy. Today if the Senator from Iowa or the Senator from Idaho gassed their car up in this city or in Idaho or in Des Moines, we would have paid the highest price for gas ever paid in our history. Does that have impact on poor people or poorer people? You bet it does. They spend more of the total percentage of their income for energy than does someone who makes more money, who is in the upper class of society. When we talk about the minimum wage and welfare reform and the economy, should we not be concerned about the price of energy as it relates to that minimum wage employee who drives to work and drives home and spends a higher percentage of the amount of money they get from the minimum wage on energy than any other segment of the economy? We ought to. This Senate has denied us the right to speak to that. Now the other side is suggesting that again we have to go through multiples of amendments if we bring up an energy bill, even though we debated it a year ago and even though we debated it the year before that, and even though we passed it out of the Senate twice and we have had ample time. And tens of plus amendments later, we have to go through that again, when this country is hurting more on energy and energy costs than it ever has. I think the American people expect more of us than just an endless debating society that never produces anything. What have I heard in the Chamber, as I have been speaking about energy the last several days? It is big oil's fault or it is the President's fault. It is somebody other than the Congress. Let me suggest to my fellow Senators: No, it is not the President's fault and, no, it is not big oil's fault. It is the Senate's fault for denying the American people a modernized, contemporary energy policy. The House passed a policy. The House passed the conference. But not the Senate. No, the Senate couldn't get there because too many of us had too many different ideas. We are here now sitting as Senators while the American consumer is spending more today for gas at the pump or gas that goes to the home for heating than ever in our history. Shame on us. Shame on us for denying a contemporary, modern energy policy. We have not touched energy policy in our country for the last 14 years. As a result of that, our policy is obsolete. It doesn't fit modern America. As I said yesterday and the day before: Consumption overall as a part of per capita has gone down, whether it be with the individual consumer or whether it be with corporate America or business and industry. But growth in our country has gone up. Yet we have largely denied our country a progressive supply-related energy policy. In other words, we have simply ignored the reality of the marketplace of supply and demand. We have had all these cute ideas over the last several years about how we can conserve our way out of this one or we can deny the consumer the right to have more energy in one form or another and that will solve the problem. It didn't solve the problem. During the decade of the 1990s, with unprecedented economic growth in our country, we used up all of the surpluses that had been built into the system. Whether it be gas supply for space heating, gas supply at the pump, whether it was commercial, we used it all up. At the end of the decade, we were beginning to experience blackouts in California. We were beginning to experience shortages. But most importantly, that supply/demand equation had begun to work and prices were edging up very rapidly. Here we are, with a 14-year-old policy, and we haven't recognized the rest of the world has also grown. One of the great growth giants today in the world is China. China's crude oil imports grew 30 percent last year, from the same supplier that is supplying 60 percent of our crude oil, the crude oil markets of the world. What is happening out there is this very rapid acceleration. We all want the economy to come back. We want our economy to come back. We want the world economy to come back so it can buy our goods and services. And as that economy comes back along with ours, they will demand more energy. We know the facts for high gas prices. The price of crude oil yesterday was $36.25 a barrel. That is why we have high gas prices. Inventory stocks are down. Fragmented gas markets are different today, and the introduction of new fuels is phenomenal. We know those are the realities of what we are doing and what we are dealing with. I don't know that you can deny it in any other way, unless you want to play raw politics. We also know what the situation is in our country today. We import 62 percent of our crude. So the same people supplying that phenomenal growth in China are also supplying us with our crude. Our refineries are now operating at record high rates. Gas production is running at record levels all over the country. Throughout the year, demand continues to be strong, as we try to get the economy going again. It is going, and it is growing. That is part of the reason for these record prices. Let's talk a little bit about big oil. Let's talk about the collusion some suggest might be out there. The attorney general of the State of California did exactly what you would expect. We better go out and investigate big oil again because gas prices are over $2.30 in California. Investigate, if you will, but I offer the following for the record; that is, the reality of all of the investigations we have had. We have had 29 State and Federal investigations over the last several decades. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Energy looked at it and said: Demand exceeds supply. What happens when demand exceeds supply? The price goes up. California Energy Commission--I guess the attorney general out in California ought to listen to the energy commission. What drove increases were unusually high costs for crude in a world market. Is that collusion, or is that supply and demand? California, listen up. There is your problem. It is called not enough supply to meet demand of the drivers of California today. Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection--while numerous factors contributed to sharp increases in gasoline prices this summer, wholesalers and retailers were not hiking prices to pad their profits. Again, a marvelous thing is happening out there. The marketplace, supply and demand. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list, starting in May of 1973 and going through this past year of 2003, of literally almost 30 different investigations, State and Federal, as it relates to big oil. Every one of them found there was no collusion.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are debating welfare reform. It is critical to our country that we do this and revitalize it. It is a major piece of legislation that has been very successful over the years, getting people out of welfare into a productive job in our economy. I don't know who the historian was who once said it. He was an economist and a historian. He said, The greatest form of welfare in the world is a good job in the private sector--we know that to be a fact--a good well-paying job. When you cannot find that, welfare in our country is that safety net we have designed and defined for those who truly need it, but recognizing that it is not a place to stay; it is a place to catch you if you fall, to help you, and to provide for you and your family, but only in the temporary form so we can get people off of welfare and back out into the private sector and into a job. In a few moments, the Senator from Massachusetts is going to talk about jobs and level of pay in those jobs. I thought for just a few moments it would be appropriate as we talk about welfare and as we talk about jobs and how much we pay for jobs as a minimum wage, that we ought to talk about job creation in this country and how critically important it is. Some have said our recovery out of this recession has been jobless. Well, that is not true. A lot of jobs are being created out there, and a lot of people are now going back to work--not as rapidly as we had hoped they would, but certainly they are headed back to work. National Energy Policy But there is a dark cloud over the horizon, and that dark cloud is there today because the Congress of the United States, and the Senate in particular, a year ago denied this country a new national energy policy and the ability to begin to produce energy, once again. We are no longer energy independent. That one driving force we had in the economic matrix that said we could produce something for less-- because we had the great ingenuity of the American workforce and because the input of energy was less than anywhere else in the world, so we could produce it better and we could produce it for less cost--is no longer true today. If you went out this morning to refuel your car before you headed to work, you paid at an all-time high level of gas prices. Why? Because the Senate of the United States denied this country a national energy policy. We know it is happening. We have seen it headed in that direction for over 7 years. Many of us have pled on this floor to develop that policy to get us back into production. But, no, we are not into production, we are not producing at a level we could be and we should be. We are not creating all the kinds of alternative fuels we ought to be. Why? Because we have not established a national energy policy in the last 8 years. The world has changed a great deal. We are now over half dependent on foreign sources of oil. Of course, there are many who will rush to the floor and point a finger at OPEC or point a finger at the political turmoil in Venezuela and say: Well, that is their problem, and it is their fault we are paying higher energy prices. Or we will have that proverbial group that will run out and point their finger at big oil. Why don't we point the finger at the Senate, for once, which has denied this country a national energy policy? The Senator from New Mexico was on the floor a few moments ago, Mr. Bingaman. He worked 2 years ago to get one. I helped him, and we could not quite get there. Then the other Senator from New Mexico did produce a policy, and we passed it in a bipartisan way. It went to the House, and we conferenced it, and the House passed the conference. It came back here. It fell apart. It fell apart for one little reason or another, but the bottom line was the politics of it. The Senate of the United States has again denied the consumer and the working man and woman the right to have an energy source and a competitive energy price to go to work on, or to work with when they get to work, or to have for recreation, or to have to heat their home, or to have to turn the lights on in their house, and to illuminate and energize the computer they use. The driving force of the economy of this country is not the politics on the street today; it is the politics of energy. It always has been. When we have competitive, moderate-to-low energy prices, the American worker can produce and compete with any workforce in the world. But today we are slowly but surely denying them that. Natural gas is at an all-time high. Gas at the pump is at an all-time high. Electricity prices in many areas around this country are at an all-time high. The great tragedy is, many of those prices are artificially inflated because of the politics of the issue, because this Senate has denied the American worker and the American consumer a national energy policy. Now, some say, well, the wealthy are going to get wealthy off of this. What about the poor? Has anybody ever calculated that high energy prices impact poor people more than any other segment in our society? If you are a household with an average annual income of $50,000, you only spend about 4 percent of your income on energy. But if you are a household with an income between $10,000 and $24,000, you spend 13 percent; you spend a higher proportion of your total income on energy. If you are a household of $10,000 or less, or at about 130-plus percent of poverty, you spend almost 30 percent of everything you make on energy--whether it is the gas you put in your car, or the throwing of a switch to illuminate the light bulb in your ceiling, or the heat for your home. High energy prices impact poor people more, and yet we will still hear these great allegations on the floor that somebody is going to get rich off of energy. No. Poor people are going to get poorer with higher energy prices. That is the impact and the reality of the problems we face. The United States is making do now with a lot less energy on a per capita basis. Some say: We can just conserve our way out of this situation. We are doing a very good job in conservation today than we did, let's say, 20 years ago. Let me give you a figure or two. In the last three decades, the U.S. economy has grown 126 percent, but energy use has grown only 30 percent. In other words, as our economy grows today, as a rate of a unit of production, we use less energy. Why? Efficiencies, new technologies. But as we grow, we are still going to need more energy. So the old argument about conserving your way out--and, oh, my goodness, if I have heard it once on the Senate floor in the last 6 years, I have heard it 2 or 3 times, that automobile fuel consumption has dropped 60 percent in that 20-year period. And we ought to be proud of that. That is partly a work of the Senate, but that is also the new technologies and efficiencies. Per capita oil consumption is down 20 percent since 1978. Industrial energy use is down 20 percent since 1978. So the reality is, we have done well. But if you want to create 800,000 new jobs, then it is going to take energy to produce them. Because it is energy that drives the great economy of our country. And when it is high-priced energy, then the jobs become high priced. When the jobs become high priced, then we worry about those jobs leaving the United States. Why hasn't the Senate of the United States put this relatively simple formula together, that high-cost energy creates a less competitive environment in which we can produce. If we are going to talk welfare-- and we are and we should; and we are going to reform it--and we are going to talk minimum wage, and there is no reason why we should not talk minimum wage--then we have to talk about the economy of creating jobs at the same time. The production tax credit we are talking about for the energy field alone would create 150,000 new jobs. As I said, the bill we have in front of us--that should pass unanimously in this Senate, but it cannot get there--will create literally between 670,000 and 800,000 new jobs during the initial phases of the development of that kind of energy. My message to the consumer today: If you do not like the price of your energy bill this winter, if you do not like the price of gas at your pump, if you are worried about your job because it may be going overseas, because your production is less competitive today, pick up the phone and call your Senator. Ask him or her why--ask us why--we did not pass a national energy bill. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Because we should have done that. We should have started down that road of getting ourselves back into the production. But, oh, no, we are bound up in the politics of this business, and somehow we just cannot get there. And try as we have for the last 5 years, in a bipartisan way, we have worked to do so. We have a bill before us now that ought to receive a nearly resounding unanimous vote, but it failed in the Senate. Our failure means the jobs of America's working men and women are at risk, the household automobile is now much more expensive to operate, and you will probably want to turn your thermostat down next winter if gas prices continue to go as high as they appear to be going. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I may be witnessing a first to see our majority leader as the Presiding Officer at this moment. Welcome to the podium. We are pleased to have you there.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will take a few moments at this time. Certainly the issue of welfare reform is critical. The Senator from Tennessee has outlined the phenomenal successes to date led by Republicans both in the House and the Senate and now, of course, the Finance Committee has come forward with a reauthorization that is critical to our country. But in talking about that issue, one of the things that all welfare reform runs subject to is the ability, as we ask people to leave welfare, to find a job. Something that frustrates me at this moment is what is occurring while the Congress of the United States refuses to act that will have a very real impact on the economy of our country and the ability to create jobs. Just this morning, as constituents across this country by all of the Senators pulled up in front of their gas pumps to fill their tanks, they paid the highest price for regular gas ever in the history of this country. Prices in California have skyrocketed out of sight, and it is true across the Nation. That is a fact. That happened this morning, and gas people are telling us that it will happen morning after morning as gas prices ratchet up across this country. There is another fact out there. Congress has searched for an agreement and debated what to do about this for well over 3 years. The House and the Senate passed energy bills in the past year and led the American people to believe that they could solve this problem. Those reports came back from the Senate and the House. The Senate passed theirs; the House passed theirs. The Senate could not get there for one reason or another and, as a result, a message was sent out to the American people that the Senate of the United States could not come to an agreement on an energy bill. That is a fact. Here is another fact. The reason energy prices continue to rise is that the Senate, not the House, failed to get the 60 votes necessary to solve what is becoming a major national crisis in this country. Let me repeat that. The Senate of the United States failed to get cloture, a vote that is critical to moving beyond the 60-vote margin to allow a national energy policy to go forward. So if you grew a little angry this morning when you paid the highest price you have ever paid for gas at the pump, call your Senator. No, not your State Senator, call your United States Senator and ask he or she how they voted on a national energy bill last year, and ask them if they supported developing a national energy policy for this country. I do believe Americans are finally getting it. They are finally beginning to understand the crunch of high gas prices not only at the pump but natural gas prices and electricity prices. Americans, like I said, are paying more for all levels of energy ever in this country. Does that have an impact on job creation and the viability of our economy? You bet it does. Does it have an impact on welfare, people losing their jobs instead of being able to get off welfare from a reform bill and get out into the economy and find jobs? You bet it does. Jobs, all kinds of opportunities in this country, recreational opportunities, all of these kinds of issues are impacted by the cost of energy in our country today. What about the cost of growing food in our country? I just had an Idaho banker in my office in the last week. He has called all of his bank branch managers together and said: Look at all your fine lines of credit to see whether we can afford to bump them up 25 or 30 percent because the average farmer is going to pay 25 or 30 percent more for input costs in production this year than they did last year, and it is all going to be as a result of the cost of energy, and it is all going to be because this Senate failed to act in a strong bipartisan way to solve this problem. America's working men and women ought to be growing angry because their home heating bills this winter were the highest they ever paid in a pretty cold and drawn-out winter. They paid more for the gas to heat their home. They paid more for oil than they ever paid. Why? Let me repeat that. Because the Senate of the United States failed to respond. Many on the other side are now saying we have a jobless recovery, that we are not creating all kinds of jobs we ought to create even though our economy is beginning to grow. Well, if the cost of production is forced to an alltime level and we have to compete with goods and services from all over the world that may be being produced in a climate where energy is half the cost than it is in this country as relates to natural gas, maybe there is a reason why the economy is sluggish and not moving as quickly as it should today. My State, an agricultural State, a high-tech State, is also a tourism and recreation State. What is going to happen this summer when mom and dad and the four, three, or two kids get in the motor home and fill it up and it is going to cost another $10, $15 or $20 every time they stop to fill up their motor home? Well, they may not be traveling to my State of Idaho this year or other places in the Nation and spending their money and feeding the economy of the States that appreciate a recreational economy. I mentioned a few moments ago, average working men and women paid historic gas prices to heat their homes this year. Here is a very fascinating and very frustrating figure: Residential, commercial, and industrial consumers have paid $130 billion more over the last 46 months, compared with 4 years before, than ever in the history of our country. That is an 86-percent increase in approximately 4 years in the price of natural gas. Why? The Congress of the United States, the Senate, did not pass a bill that would have allowed greater exploration, that would allow the necessary kind of pipeline development. The bill we would like to bring to the floor today would allow a gas pipeline to be brought down out of Alaska where we are pumping billions of cubic feet of natural gas back into the ground that could be coming to the Lower 48. That would not have caused this figure. The increased price of natural gas has cost industrial consumers $66 billion, residential consumers $39 billion, and commercial consumers $25 billion. Every penny of the $130 billion could have been prevented if the Congress of the United States had acted. We knew this perfect storm was coming. We have looked at it for the last 5 years. We knew that with the Clean Air Act we were going to push people toward natural gas, and yet we closed our public lands, we made it much more difficult to certificate, and we slowly but surely walked away from production at a time when Federal policy was increasing the use of natural gas to alltime highs. What is the impact on the farmer of my State? Let me give a few figures. Everything from diesel fuel to the cost of fertilizer has gone up. It is skyrocketing. Some fertilizer costs will go up nearly 100 percent this year. It might mean less fertilizer is used. It may mean food production could flatten out or even go down in this country. What about the profitability of the farmer? If the farmer is not profitable, if he is not making money, my guess is he is going to turn to his Senator or his Congressman and say, I have had a bad year; can you help me a little bit? Maybe the reason he had a bad year is because the Senate of the United States has refused for 5 years to look at a comprehensive energy policy. Loss of manufacturing jobs, plant shutdowns, corporate bankruptcies-- some of these have been tied to the high cost of energy. Residential electric bills and certainly, as a result of that, higher food costs are all a part of it. We like to get people off welfare. We want them to have self-dignity and worth. We want them to have a job on their own and we are willing to help them get there. But we flatten out our economy through Federal rule and regulation in part because we will not develop a national energy policy. What is the solution? Well, some of my friends on the other side, an attorney general out in California, said it is time to investigate the big oil companies again; it is their fault. Now I would like to say: It ain't their fault anymore. We are not letting them explore. We are not letting them develop. We are saying, this land is off; this land is off; you cannot go offshore; you cannot do this; you cannot do that. Slowly but surely we have ratcheted up our dependence on foreign providers, now teetering at around 60 percent. The Middle East, oh, well, we can blame OPEC; Venezuela, we can blame the politics of Venezuela. We sure do not want to blame ourselves for having failed to come together in the development of a national energy policy. The Governor of Rhode Island said this recently: The high cost of natural gas is taking a toll on our economy across New England and across the Nation. In today's competitive world, manufacturers cannot raise prices to compensate for higher energy costs. The only long-term solution is to increase supply. My guess is that when we talk about increasing supply, the land offshore Rhode Island is off limits to exploration and development. The vice president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau put it this way: One of the industry's highest dependence on natural gas as a feedstock and critical to American agriculture is the fertilizer industry. Natural gas is the primary feedstock in the production of virtually all commercial nitrogen fertilizers in the United States, accounting for nearly 90 percent of the farmers' total cost of anhydrous ammonia. Our domestic fertilizer production capacity has already experienced a permanent loss of 25 percent over the last 4 years, and an additional increase in costs, recommending the potential of another 20 percent shutdown of that industry. Well, I could go on with quote after quote. I know I am not talking about reauthorization of the Welfare Reform Act at this time, but an economy that employs people is in direct relationship to getting people off welfare and getting them into a good-paying job. That is what an economy that grows is all about. When this Senate refuses to pass a national energy policy and by that failure drives up energy costs, we drive jobs offshore, we drive jobs underground, and most assuredly those who are out looking for a job for the first time in this economy are not going to find that job; they are going to want to come back to their Government and ask for help and assistance. I thought it was appropriate that we speak about a national energy policy, about a job-creating economy, when we are talking about welfare reform. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for the work he has done, the very bipartisan effort once again to do what is right and responsible in the area of welfare reform. Let me challenge this Senate, Democrat and Republican alike, to do what is right when it comes to a national energy policy. Get this country back into the business of producing oil instead of using excuses that it is somebody else's fault that the price of gas at the pump is now at a national alltime high. I will tell my colleagues whose fault it is: Call your U.S. Senator. It is his fault that gas is now high today. Do not let them duck and hide and blame big oil or blame OPEC or blame someone else. Blame your Senator. Call him today. It is his or her fault we do not have a national energy policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Lautenberg amendment and also to speak generally about S. Con. Res. 95, which is, of course, the underlying budget resolution. I also come from a State that has a very large Superfund site, so one would think I would be in support of the Lautenberg amendment to fund that site, but I am not, and here is the reason why, and why I think it is important we all understand a tax is a tax is a tax, and what the Senator proposes on Superfund is really a tax on a lot of businesses that are having difficulty at this moment. In fiscal year 2005, the request for Superfund is $1.38 billion, and that is an increase of about $124 million over fiscal year 2004. The fiscal year 2005 budget includes a $150 million increase in Superfund cleanups, and that $150 million not only funds the cleanup work already underway in Idaho and the program we have planned out there, but it also includes 15 new construction projects, or cleanup projects, involved under Superfund law. Democrats will argue to reinstate the Superfund tax so that, in their words, the polluter pays for the cost of the cleanup. Well, the fact is the polluter already pays under current law. Where there is an identifiable and viable polluter, consistent with the law, they are held liable. Congress has exempted a few small businesses, but in most cases, again, where there is an identifiable polluter which has a viable company that can obviously be held responsible, they are asked to pay, and by law they will pay. That was certainly true in the Superfund area of Idaho, which was an old mining area. While some of those mining companies and smelting companies participated in paying, there is also a tap on the Superfund itself for that kind of pay. In 2003, potential responsible parties, or PRPs, paid about 87 percent of the cost of new construction. Certainly a great deal of money is coming out of the business sector to pay for cleanup under the Superfund law. Historically, PRPs--again, responsible parties--have paid more than 70 percent of the cleanup itself. So the law itself is a tax imposed on those companies when they are found responsible for the pollution and are by law required to clean up the pollutants. Superfund taxes were always unfair. The tax goes where the money is and not where the responsibility lies. What we are doing now is directing it toward the responsible parties. This is not a tax on polluters. It is an indiscriminate tax on business, as proposed by Senator Lautenberg. The Superfund tax was levied against a broad range of businesses. It is interesting there is no correlation between the dollars in the Superfund and the level of funding that goes to Superfund cleanup. There is no delay in cleanups due to a lack of the Superfund tax. As we work to stimulate this economy and get it back on line and get companies in the business of growing and expanding so they can create new jobs and hire the unemployed, this tax goes, in a broad-based way, right at those companies, once again potentially dragging them down. I am on the floor today also to strongly support S. Con. Res. 95 which the Budget Committee has worked so hard to produce. This is not the kind of budget resolution I wish I was voting on. That is not the fault of the chairman of the Budget Committee or the majority of the committee, and it is not the fault of the President of the United States, and it is not the fault of the tax relief this Congress enacted in 2001 through 2003. Where does the fault lie? There has been a lot of fingerpointing by all of the amendments that have been brought out here in a great rush on the part of my Democrat colleagues to crank all these taxes back up and stunt the growth that is starting. Where does the fault lie? With an economic cycle that, despite the collective denial of politicians, bequeaths our Nation with a recession at least about once every decade. Certainly in my time here in the Congress I have watched that cycle go forth. Somehow in the late 1990s we thought the cycle would never come, but it did come. It came in the latter years of the Clinton administration. We were trying to pull it out and then along came 9/11. We all know what happened at that time when terrorists attacked innocent civilians in this country and really threw this country into a phenomenal, quick slowdown. Some will argue it took over $1 trillion out of the economy at that time. Where does the fault lie? With the international terrorist movement and the foreign regimes who supported it. We saw what happened, tragically, in Spain today. No country is immune. Certainly we have had to invest mightily to begin to develop a level of protection for the civilian population in this country we really had never had before. With that difficult, perfect combination of things happening, and I think obviously understood by all, what are we dealing with? We are dealing with a very difficult time. We, as a Congress, have worked mightily to work our way out of that. These circumstances, most of them forced upon us, have really been a body blow to our economy, to American jobs, and to the current fiscal situation. Something else is also happening. The American people have said, in reality, you have spent about as much as you need to spend. We have deficits growing. It is time we get those deficits under control. The chairman of the Budget Committee has worked mightily to do that. We are in the aftermath of a market slump and an economic slowdown that truly began in 2000, before this President took office. Nobody denies that today, although some would like to point a finger in a rather odd direction, at this current President. We are still working our way out of this recession in all respects. It is not smooth sailing, but clearly the wind is now to our back and it appears the economy is slowly but progressively coming on line. We fought a shooting war against terrorism on two fronts and continue to fight terrorism at home and abroad. Unfortunately, in a business world in which most folks play by the rules and follow the law, something else has happened: A significant handful of scandals and a legacy of some of the excesses of the 1990s that shook the confidence of the stock market and further depressed the economic downturn. That cyclical downturn already was inevitable. I think I can well remember what Fed chairman Alan Greenspan said when he warned us of an overvalued market and an irrationally exuberant attitude, long before the market slumped. So the combination of the 9/ 11 and bad actors out there in the market along with the reality of cyclical movements in our country have brought us to where we are today and brought the budget to where it is, trying to be fiscally responsible and fund the needed and necessary services of our Government and at the same time saying we are controlling our spending here and we are not going to overtax America's workforce. Quite another message comes from the other side at this moment. Somehow they have an insatiable appetite to continually increase taxes on working men and women. They will argue they would like to direct it at the millionaires of this country. They never really quite define it. We know the vast majority of the taxes paid in this country are paid by average working men and women because they make up by far the vast majority of the cumulative wealth and generated wealth of our country. Given all the circumstances, I believe this is a very good budget resolution. I believe we ought to work hard to support it and to refine it where we can throughout the process and get on with the business of doing what is responsible here and that is causing our Government to function in the appropriate fashion. It is a political year. We all know that. It would be a nice surprise if the Congress of the United States, at least on budgetary matters, and at least through the appropriation process, could show the American people we are going to be responsible, we are going to finish the budget on time, we are going to get our appropriations out on time. Then we can get at the business of politics, of deciding who is going to run the next Congress and who the next President of this country will be. But it would be amazingly refreshing if we could show the American people we can work together. It doesn't appear that is going to happen and that is a real sadness of mine. We are working hard to put a budget resolution together and yet we see this insatiable appetite on the part of my Democrat colleagues to continually raise the spectrum of more taxes, more taxes, more taxes. I congratulate Senator Nickles, chairman of the Budget Committee. This resolution represents a truly heroic effort of responsible management of our budget during a time of trial and challenge in our country. It is a tough time. We all know that. It is understandable. It is unfortunate that several years of international and economic shocks and jolts have produced today's record budget deficits. Our constituents today know it. They understand history. But they also understand responsibility and they have handed us that responsibility and they are suggesting we treat it with due respect. The American people, especially after 9/11, showed tremendous resilience. They met the challenge. They expect us to meet the challenge. They demand it of us. They demand it of our President. In nearly all instances that simply has happened. The President and Congress did the right thing in 2001 and 2003. Without tax relief, where would we be today? We would probably have fewer jobs. Our senior citizens' nest eggs would be lower in value and less secure. Millions of low- and moderate-income families would probably have less freedom and financial empowerment today than they would without the tax reduction. Small business startups and growth would have been stunted. Without the leadership and the effectiveness of this President and Congress on matters of defense and homeland security and the economy, we would still be in a recession. We are not in that recession now. We are clearly in a recovery mode. This country is struggling along, but always upward, building its job base and bringing people back into the job market in a very progressive way. Lots of challenges remain. None of us will argue the difference because challenges are there. But is the challenge simply to go out and burden the economy again by major tax increases? They would suggest that we not extend the current taxes. That is not going to be a tax increase? You ask the average working man or woman, ask the average family of four, if doing that doesn't constitute a tax increase because it takes money away from their spendable bottom line. You darned bet it is a tax increase. The very least we can do is assure that we maintain the child tax credit and the marriage penalty relief and the 10-percent tax rate which is going to be critical to the working men and women of modest means in this country. That is what this Congress ought to be about. If I have heard the rhetoric once, I have heard it a good number of times in my years here in Congress. Somehow Government can do it best; somehow an expenditure of the Government dollar is going to cause our lives to be better. In instances that is true, such as in areas of health care and in Social Security. But in instances of good-paying jobs, Government doesn't create them. It is the private sector that creates them. We ought to be incentivizing in every way we possibly can the very job creator we know about--small business, medium-size business, and large business in this country. I strongly support what the Budget Committee has brought forward. I think it is responsible. I am glad we are defeating most of these amendments that would simply send us into a tax-and-spend spiral, the kind we have seen before that more often drove us into a recession than drove us out of a recession. To tighten our belt, to bring the deficit down, and to begin to show a pattern of moving us toward a balanced budget again is the right thing. The chairman of the Budget Committee is doing just that. The President asked that we begin to tighten our belt and curtail our spending in a variety of areas that are less essential to the fundamental responsibilities of our Government. That is exactly what we are doing. It is a tough budget. It is not an easy budget. But it is a budget worth voting for. It is a budget worth finalizing so we can get on with the appropriating process. I hope at the end of the year when we adjourn sine die we can say our job was complete; that while it was a very partisan year and a highly politicized year, the Congress came together, got their appropriations bills finished, and did their homework. There will be only one way that won't happen--if the other side, in an obstructionist way, decides it won't happen; if they decide every appropriations bill that comes up has to have 50, 60, 90, or 100 amendments and we have to labor day after day after we have worked in a bipartisan way to craft the appropriations bills, as we always do. That is our challenge. Let us get our budget resolution complete. Let us get reconciliation, the tools that move us forward toward the appropriating process so we can complete the year as the American taxpayer and the voter would expect us to do. That is the challenge. The chairman of the Budget Committee and the Budget Committee are meeting that challenge, and I hope we are worthy of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2789

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I look forward to the U.S. Senate passing this resolution and designating the week of March 14-20, 2004, as National Safe Place Week. I would like to thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for her work on this issue. I would also like to thank the other cosponsors of this resolution: Senator Campbell, Senator Boxer, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Landrieu, Senator Inhofe, Senator Feingold, Senator Cochran, Senator Johnson, Senator Lieberman, Senator Mikulski, Senator Durbin, Senator Kohl, Senator Lincoln, Senator Shelby, and Senator Murkowski. This action will recognize the importance of Project Safe Place and send a message that we will keep working to protect our children. In countless hours of selfless work, volunteers truly do make a difference every day, and in passing this resolution, the Senate will be applauding the tireless efforts of the thousands of dedicated volunteers across the Nation for their many contributions to the youth of our Nation through Project Safe Place. Mr. President, events of the day may turn our attention overseas, but it is essential to remember those who are fighting an ongoing battle right here at home. This battle has been raging for generations and consists of fighting to protect this Nation's most valuable resource: our children. Young people are the future of this Nation; they need to be both valued and protected. Sadly, however, as my colleagues know, this precious resource is threatened daily. I come to the Senate floor today to talk about a tremendous initiative between the public and private sector that has been reaching out to youth for over twenty years. Project Safe Place is a program that was developed to assist our Nation's youth and families in crisis. This partnership creates a network of private businesses trained to refer youth in need to the local service providers who can help them. Those businesses display a Safe Place sign so that people can easily recognize a ``safe place'' for them to go to receive help. The goal of National Safe Place Week is to recognize the thousands of individuals who work to make Project Safe Place a reality. From trained volunteers to seasoned professionals, these dedicated individuals are working together with the resources in their local communities and through their ties across the Nation to serve young people. Because of Project Safe Place, this all happens under a well-known symbol of safety for in-crisis youth. Project Safe Place is a simple program to implement in any local community, and it works. Young people are more likely to seek help in locations that are familiar and non-threatening to them. By creating a network of Safe Places across the Nation, all youth will have access to needed help, counseling, or a safe place to stay. However, though the program has already been established in 42 States, there are still too many communities that don't know about this valuable youth resource. If your State does not already have a Safe Place organization, please consider facilitating this worthwhile resource so that young people who are abused, neglected, or whose futures are jeopardized by physical or emotional trauma will have access to immediate help and safety in your community. To create more Project Safe Place sites in Idaho, the staff in several of my State offices have completed the training to make them Safe Place sites, and now have the skills and ability to assist troubled youth. In the coming years, Project Safe Place hopes that every child in America will have the opportunity to connect with someone who can provide immediate help by easily recognizing the Safe Place sign. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this resolution be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 24, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 433, a bill to provide for enhanced collaborative forest stewardship management within the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests in Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 2180, a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange certain lands in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado; and H.R. 1964, a bill to assist the States of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania in conserving priority lands and natural resources in the Highlands region, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Frank Gladics at 202-224- 2878.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2742