Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to respond to a growing crime problem that is harming honest businesses, endangering public health, and dragging down our economy. The problem I am talking about is organized retail theft. Organized retail theft is a quantum leap in criminality beyond petty shoplifting. It involves professional gangs or theft rings that move quickly from store to store, from community to community, and across State lines to pilfer large amounts of merchandise that can be easily sold through fencing operations, flea markets, swap meets and shady storefront operations. This type of criminal activity is a growing problem throughout the United States, harming many segments of the retail community, including supermarkets, chain drug stores, independent pharmacies, convenience stores, large discount operations, mass merchandisers, and specialty shops, among others. Organized retail theft has become the most pressing security problem confronting retailers and their suppliers, accounting for an estimated $30 billion in losses at the retail level annually, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's interstate theft task force. This kind of theft also presents significant health and safety risks for consumers. While items that are in high demand and prized by these organized gangs include software, videos, DVDs and CDs, razor blades, camera film, and batteries--they also include over-the-counter drug products, such as analgesics, cough and cold medications, and infant formula. Professional theft rings do not provide ideal or required storage conditions for consumable items, and as a result, the integrity and nutrient content of these products is often compromised. Furthermore, when products are near the end of their expiration date, it is not uncommon for unscrupulous middlemen to change the expiration date, lot numbers, and labels to falsely extend the shelf-life of the products or to disguise the fact that the merchandise has been stolen. Clearly, theft of this kind adversely affects both retailers and consumers in a variety of ways. For example, because theft by professional gangs has become so rampant in certain product categories, such as infant formula, many retail stores are taking the product off the shelves and placing them behind the counter or under lock and key. In some cases, products are simply unavailable due to high pilferage rates. Let me commend the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice for their work in this area. I know the Department has successfully prosecuted a number of cases against professional shoplifting rings. However, retail organizations and individual companies are crying out for help because this type of criminal activity is escalating, and there is no federal statute that specifically addresses organized retail theft. I believe more can be done to help in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of these criminal gangs. The legislation that I am introducing is in response to the concerns that have been brought to my attention by the retailing community. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort. While this bill is not a cure- all, I hope it will help to highlight the magnitude of the problem so that we can begin considering appropriate initiatives with all interested parties, including our federal law enforcement agencies, on how to effectively combat and deter organized retail theft in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Organized Retail Theft Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to respond to a growing crime problem that is harming honest businesses, endangering public health, and dragging down our economy. The problem I am talking about is organized retail theft. Organized retail theft is a quantum leap in criminality beyond petty shoplifting. It involves professional gangs or theft rings that move quickly from store to store, from community to community, and across State lines to pilfer large amounts of merchandise that can be easily sold through fencing operations, flea markets, swap meets and shady storefront operations. This type of criminal activity is a growing problem throughout the United States, harming many segments of the retail community, including supermarkets, chain drug stores, independent pharmacies, convenience stores, large discount operations, mass merchandisers, and specialty shops, among others. Organized retail theft has become the most pressing security problem confronting retailers and their suppliers, accounting for an estimated $30 billion in losses at the retail level annually, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's interstate theft task force. This kind of theft also presents significant health and safety risks for consumers. While items that are in high demand and prized by these organized gangs include software, videos, DVDs and CDs, razor blades, camera film, and batteries--they also include over-the-counter drug products, such as analgesics, cough and cold medications, and infant formula. Professional theft rings do not provide ideal or required storage conditions for consumable items, and as a result, the integrity and nutrient content of these products is often compromised. Furthermore, when products are near the end of their expiration date, it is not uncommon for unscrupulous middlemen to change the expiration date, lot numbers, and labels to falsely extend the shelf-life of the products or to disguise the fact that the merchandise has been stolen. Clearly, theft of this kind adversely affects both retailers and consumers in a variety of ways. For example, because theft by professional gangs has become so rampant in certain product categories, such as infant formula, many retail stores are taking the product off the shelves and placing them behind the counter or under lock and key. In some cases, products are simply unavailable due to high pilferage rates. Let me commend the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice for their work in this area. I know the Department has successfully prosecuted a number of cases against professional shoplifting rings. However, retail organizations and individual companies are crying out for help because this type of criminal activity is escalating, and there is no federal statute that specifically addresses organized retail theft. I believe more can be done to help in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of these criminal gangs. The legislation that I am introducing is in response to the concerns that have been brought to my attention by the retailing community. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort. While this bill is not a cure- all, I hope it will help to highlight the magnitude of the problem so that we can begin considering appropriate initiatives with all interested parties, including our federal law enforcement agencies, on how to effectively combat and deter organized retail theft in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Organized Retail Theft Act be printed in the Record.

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. I yield myself 5 minutes of our time.

Mr. CRAIG. I come to the floor this morning frustrated in part by some of the debate that has occurred on the floor. The Senator from Washington and I agree the ratepayers of the Pacific Northwest have been injured by a dysfunctional California market that was badly designed and badly conceived from the beginning. In fact, it got so bad and it has been so dramatically treated in the wrong political way that we have a gubernatorial recall going on in the State of California right now. Finally, the ratepayers of California got it figured out. The politics of California destroyed the market and the ratepayers of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho had to help pay for it. To come to the floor this morning and say nothing is going on and nobody is being prosecuted is, in fact, wrong. It is not telling the whole truth. The title we have in front of us, the electrical title, still allows thorough and aggressive prosecution of those who violate the law. Where is the regulatory gap that is being talked about this morning that the Senator from the State of Washington, by her amendment, might change? Here are the agencies involved at this moment: The President's Corporate Fraud Task Force, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the United States Postal Service, and numerous U.S. Attorney's Offices. Their cooperative enforcement activities have focused on investigations of possible round-trip trading, false reporting, fraud, manipulation of energy companies and their affiliates, employees, and their agents. There is a list of some of the actions taken on various Federal agencies. Let me run through them: Starting on July 16, 2003, the FERC administrative law judge recommended Enron be required to refund $32.5 million for violating section 205(c) of the Federal Power Act. June 25, 2003, FERC revoked the market-based rate authority of the Enron power marketing entity. June 3, 2003, John M. Forney, manager of the Enron real-time trading desk during 1999 and 2000, was arrested and charged with wire fraud and conspiracy. May 1, 2003, new criminal charges were filed against former Enron chief financial officer, Andrew Fastow, including charges of security fraud, insider trading, falsification of Enron accounting records, tax fraud, and self-dealing. I could go on, and I have numerous lists. But that is Enron. Let me go to Reliant Resources: May 12, 2003, Securities and Exchange Commission issued a cease and desist order against Reliant Resources and Reliant Energy arising from Reliant's admission in May of 2002 that it conducted round-trip trading for the purpose of artificially increasing trading volume. Dynegy, another energy company, June 12, 2003; the U.S. Attorney's Office for the South District of Texas charged three former Dynegy employees with conspiracy, securities fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud in connection with round-trip energy trades, and the Securities and Exchange Commission also filed civil securities fraud charges against the former employees. How about El Paso Corporation? May 9, 2003--in May of 2003 FERC deferred action in a pending proceeding stemming from allegations of affiliate abuse and anticompetitive impacts on the delivered price of gas and the wholesale electric market in California. It goes on and on. I have four more pages of about seven items per page of actions that have already been taken against these companies. The question is, Does the electrical title that we have before the Senate today create a regulatory gap? The answer is quite obviously no. Does it change the problem in the State of Washington? Washington got stiffed by the old law and the old process. Idaho's ratepayers got stiffed by the old law and the old process. And the citizens of California have finally said: We have a Governor who will not do anything about it. He put us in a huge deficit problem, and we are going to throw him out of office. And that is what that recall is about. It all stems from a phenomenally dysfunctional electric market that the people of California created, and they created it by deregulating wholesale and regulating retail and in came the scammers and the scammers are now being prosecuted as they should be. I do not believe the amendment is necessary. I believe the title in this bill on electricity appropriately addresses this. There is transparency. There is no regulatory gap.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the chairman yield?

Mr. CRAIG. So you can sustain the goodwill of the rest of the colleagues because you are managing the bill, you should.

Mr. CRAIG. I simply say to the Senator that to sustain the goodwill that he needs to, he will work the bill, but when there are time agreements of 3 hours, this Senator will object to adding more time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I will speak briefly to the Feingold- Brownback amendment. There is the illusion, or at least the concern, on the part of some of our colleagues that the title we have before the Senate in S. 14 somehow creates a type of regulatory gap that I don't believe exists. The chairman of the committee, in his thoughtful processes that brought us to this amendment and the time he has spent working on it with staff, would agree it does not exist. Certainly Senator Feingold and others have reason to be concerned, as do I. My constituency, my ratepayers of Idaho, for a period of time spent a good deal more than they should have on their electrical costs because of the dysfunctional markets in the State of California. Those dysfunctional markets occurred with all of these laws in place that we are talking about now changing. What is most important to recognize is, those who misused the market are now suffering. Those who misused the market are now being prosecuted. Those who misused the market to line their pockets, I trust, are having their pockets stripped of ill-gotten gold. Why? Because our President has a Corporate Fraud Task Force, we have a little organization called the FBI, we have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and, yes, even the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office that seek to look at and have found what they allegedly suggest is postal fraud. Whether it is Enron, whether it is Dynegy, whether it is Reliant or whether it is El Paso Corporation, time and time again, and currently, many of the major operatives within those organizational structures are being brought before the Federal justice system and will be or are being prosecuted because of what they are now alleged to have done or are accused of having done as it relates to wire fraud, conspiracy, manipulation, round-trip trading, all of those things we suggest ought not happen. What we have done in this title appropriately protects the consumers of this country, but, as important, we protect the capital that comes to this market to be invested, to create the generational capabilities, the transmission capabilities, the pipeline capabilities, all the things we need to interlock an energy system in our country and to continue to make it as reliable as it has been in the past and as reliable and abundant as it should be, hopefully at the least cost to the consumer. Clearly, the consumer got gouged. My consumers got gouged. There was ill-gotten gold. We darned well ought to strip it from the pockets of those who were out to steal it from the consumer. Tragically enough, that stealing was going on long before this amendment, under the current laws that some argue we ought to keep in place, 1930 laws that have rendered themselves relatively obsolete in a modern-day energy system. We are asking that we have the right enforcement in place. We have given FERC the authority it ought to have within the confines and the limitations in which we believe it ought to operate. There is no regulatory gap. Any reason to add to what we have done simply frustrates the multibillion-dollar market, the revenues that will come, the investment that will be created, toward once again creating the finest electrical and energy market in the history of the world. That is what we ought to have. That is what we need. Without that, our investors and our economies look elsewhere, beyond the bounds of our country where they can find stability of economy, stability of resource and, most importantly, an abundant supply of energy. In the absence of energy, in the absence of an abundant, least cost supply of energy, our economy is in trouble. If our economy is in trouble, most assuredly our men and women who want to find work in that economy are oftentimes without work. We believe this is a full employment bill that will create literally hundreds of thousands of new jobs because of the stability it will bring. 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.

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

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 move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1386 As Amended and Modified

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

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing on August 6, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. on legislation related to the State of Alaska. The hearing will be held in Anchorage at the Loussac Library, Assembly Chambers, 3600 Denali Street. The Committee will consider S. 1421, the Alaska Native Allotment Subdivision Act; S. 1354, the Cape Fox Land Entitlement Act of 2003; and S. 1466, the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003. 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, SD-364, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Dick Bouts (202-224-7545) or Meghan Beal (202-224-7556).

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments on the Levin-Bond, Bond-Levin amendment, which is critical to a clarification and establishment of the CAFE standards as we understand them and that fit the industry of our country--the automobile industry--and that effectively match up with where we want to take fleet averages and all of that over the course of time. It is certainly, in my opinion, a much more responsible approach than that which is being proposed by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin. I do believe the Durbin amendments on CAFE standards would have a devastating impact on the automobile industry. As the Senator from Michigan has said, new technologies introduced into the automobile transportation fleets of this country not only take time but cost a tremendous amount of money and, in the course of that, oftentimes change the whole character of industries. We need to be extremely careful about that. For example, the Durbin amendment proposal calls for passenger cars and light truck CAFE standards to be set at 40 miles per gallon and 27.5 miles per gallon, respectively, by 2015. At the same time, minivans and other SUVs are shifted from a light truck fleet to a car fleet; vehicles up to 14,000 pounds are added to the regular fleet. It is a combination and a formula that, while I have spent a good deal of time over the years trying to understand, I am not at all confident I can effectively explain it for the record or for those who are advocating it or for those who are simply listening and trying to understand the importance of this debate. We do have an alternative in the Bond-Levin approach, which I think balances out what we have said historically in CAFE standards that cause our industry, in a progressive fashion, to drive in the right direction, to do what is appropriate and necessary within the confines of not only building safe automobiles, safe transportation, but that which is increasingly efficient for the consuming public. We are on S. 14, a comprehensive Energy bill for this country. The Senate has been working to pass a comprehensive Energy bill for 3 years. I find it fascinating that it is so impossible to do. We passed the Department of Homeland Security bill in 1 day. In 1 day of debate, the Senate took a very huge portion of Government and over 100,000 employees and changed their direction and future. We have already been on an Energy bill this year and in this session for several weeks. Yet we are being told we cannot get it done this week, with some 300 amendments offered. Then when we suggested we would come in and start early and work late, the minority recommended that they would offer optimum flexibility, and they have just denied us now in the last several hours the very flexibility they promised--that we could offer amendments, lay them aside, go to other amendments, debate those, lay them aside until the appropriate number were assembled, and then we could use the process of stacking and do so to bring about the votes that would expedite the time and effectively utilize the very limited time we have--the time that we think is extremely necessary and that we can, in fact, complete our work. The Senate already this year, as I have mentioned, has considered an Energy bill for 12 days, and the bill before us is not some secret. It is not like the bill last year that was crafted in the office of then- Majority Leader Daschle and was brought to the floor and substituted several times in a way we did not know what it was made up of or where it was going until we saw it when it was before the Senate for consideration. This bill was crafted in the committee. It was brought up in a normal fashion, it was voted out in a bipartisan fashion, and the only real unknown was the electrical title which was available by Friday of this past week to all who had not been involved in its crafting. My colleagues had the opportunity over the weekend to look at it. We wanted to offer that electrical title amendment to the bill this afternoon so we could all see it, begin to understand it, debate it, and, if necessary, leave it before the Senate a day or so to be sure we could clearly deal with it in the appropriate fashion. I hope that what happened several hours ago, denying us the ability to lay aside amendments and move to other amendments, does not become a pattern. If it does, then this Senator will come to the Chamber and talk about the good faith or the lack thereof, the desire or the lack thereof, in wanting to produce a national energy policy for our country. I wish to talk about the need of that policy now and into the future. If one reads the St. Louis newspaper today, one will read about natural gas prices taking a Missouri farmer from $295 a ton for nitrogen fertilizer to as much as $430 a ton because of the runup in gas prices. If that is happening in Missouri, I darn well bet it is happening to my farmers in Idaho or the U.S. chemical companies closing plants and laying off workers and looking to expand their production overseas as a result of high gas prices. The Wall Street Journal said: The United States is expected to import approximately $9 billion more in chemicals this year than last year. Why? Because we are running the chemical industry out of our country because this Congress, this Senate, in 3 years has refused to produce a national energy policy for our country that, once again, not only recognizes that energy will be available but that it will be stable, that there will be a reliable supply at a predictable cost, and not one that goes from $3 a cubic thousand feet to $6, as we have seen gas spike in just the last several months, totally disallowing any industry that uses large volumes of natural gas any way of predicting or projecting costs of development, costs of refinement and, therefore, price to consumer in the market. We cannot afford for this country to increasingly buy its chemicals overseas as we buy our crude oil from overseas. It will result in $9 billion more in the imbalance of our trade simply because Congress cannot function. The blame will lie at our feet because we have been 3 years trying to perfect a national energy policy for our country. I oftentimes remember the first meeting I had with President-elect George W. Bush in the majority leader's office. He had been talking about a lot of issues for our country--education, Leave No Child Behind, a whole combination of issues. But that day he said: While all of these other issues are important, and we will get to them--and, of course, we all remember his high priority in the campaign about delivering tax cuts--what we have to do right now is develop a national energy policy. He said: I know of nothing more critical to our Nation and its future than doing just that. As we know, the moment he was our President, he immediately appointed our Vice President to head up a task force to build a national energy policy strategy and, out of that strategy, to recommend to Congress changes in law and provisions we might undertake to build a strong, stable national energy base for our country. Oh, my goodness, that was well over 2 years ago. They got their work done in less than 6 months, and yet we cannot get our work done here at a time when gas prices are spiking, at a time when the memories of the blackouts and brownouts in California are still very much alive in the minds of most citizens on the west coast who either lost their jobs or had their jobs damaged and which created less security. I was in San Jose, CA, about a month ago talking to the high-tech community. Oh, they had a lot of priorities, but their first priority was energy, and they needed to know if there was going to be a stable supply of energy because if there was not, they knew they would have to move their production facilities to a location where that energy supply existed. The Silicon Valley not the high-tech hub of the Western World? It is very feasible that could happen someday because the State of California and our country as a whole have not developed a national energy policy. If chemical companies move offshore because of the price of energy, high-tech can follow, and will follow, and shame on us as a people and shame on us as a Senate if we cannot produce a national energy policy and put it on the President's desk so that those fears can be laid aside and we produce a source of energy for our country that is highly stable and secure. ``Rising prices, combined with a cold winter, are adding an extra $500 to $700 per month to the gas bill of the Villa Pizza Restaurant in Hanford, CT.'' So speaks the Hanford newspaper. ``Eighty percent of our Nation's 35,000 laundromats have raised prices in the past year due to high natural gas prices.'' That is according to the Associated Press. Mr. President, did you ever think your laundry bill was going to go up because the Congress of the United States could not act? It is happening, and that is exactly what the Associated Press is saying. Because of the gas that feeds the dryers at the laundromat, it now costs double what it cost a year ago. A couple more quarters need to go into the machine every time someone activates it. We do not think about that at the time, but collectively, for the economy of our country, these kinds of implications in an energy policy, or absence thereof, are devastating in the broad sense. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, before the Energy Committee just a few weeks ago, was talking about the stability of an economy and the growth of an economy built upon the foundation of a stable supply of energy of all kinds for this Nation. S. 14 is the most comprehensive national energy policy statement I believe the Senate has produced in my time in the Senate. It talks about production of all kinds of energy--from wind to solar, nuclear, hydro, coal, and gas. It talks about restructuring in the new electrical title to create greater uniformity and to create a national transmission system for wholesale electricity in this country, about which we ought to be talking. It talks about conservation because while we are producing more energy for a growing economy, we ought to be using less energy per item of work, per unit of production. That is called conservation, and any one of us who has ever studied national energy policy in our country clearly recognizes the value and the importance of conserving while we produce more. We cannot conserve our way out, and we cannot conserve ourselves into a growing economy, but at the same time the balance and the greater efficiencies produced by conservation are critical as we combine them with new and increased production. S. 14 is clearly written in the backdrop and the understanding that the American people want clean sources of energy, that our environment is critical and important, that we want to be able to work, we want to be able to produce jobs, and we want to be able to do so in a clean environment. America's environmental ethic is profound today and S. 14 clearly reflects the importance of that. It clearly reflects the importance of producing new energy sources and old energy sources made cleaner, and all of that being strong and important as it relates to new jobs. Let's talk about jobs for a moment. I am very pleased we passed new tax laws. I am very pleased those new tax incentives and rewards are hitting the marketplace at this moment and the consumer's and investor's pocket. I believe out of that, new jobs will be created and possibly there will be a bit more consumer spending. That child tax credit check that is hitting America's homes, I see Home Depot has picked up on it. They are saying, come out and spend your money and build a better home, make an addition, do some remodeling, and we will help you do it. That is called the free enterprise system at work, and that will generate jobs. If we want to talk about a jobs bill, then pass S. 14. Pass a bill that will bring natural gas out of Alaska through Canada and into the lower 48. There will be hundreds of thousands of new jobs that will be created for the construction of that pipeline--not only those who will manufacture the pipe, but those who will clear the right-of-way and build the foundation and create the connectivity that will be combined to bring that gas to the lower 48, and of course, all of the other kinds of jobs, exploration, development and the new technologies. The Senator from Michigan was talking about fuel cells a few moments ago. I was up in his State. I was at the Ford Laboratories at Dearborn a couple of years ago and drove a new hydrogen fuel-celled car. I hope that in my senior years I can buy a hydrogen fuel-celled car; its only pollution is a drop of water being emitted out the tailpipe of the car. I hope that is a form of new transportation for the future. If it is, it will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs; not just in crafting the car but in producing the hydrogen, in supplying the hydrogen, in building the refuel stations and the combination of things that go along with building a new energy source for a transportation fleet for our country. That is what this bill is all about. Why is there so much resistance to it? Why some 300-plus amendments? I have looked at many of them, and from what I could see there are 25 or 30 amendments within that 300 that are legitimate, that have reasonable concern. I believe there are at least 200 of them that are there for a political statement or for blocking purposes. The other side argues that we just cannot get our work done, that we need weeks more to deal with something we have already spent 12 days on, that we have already spent 3 years on. Why do we need 3 weeks more? Why can we not begin to work at 9 tomorrow morning and work until 8 tomorrow night and everybody come to the floor and, in a timely way, debate amendments, vote them up or down, move to table them, move ourselves through this issue, and offer to the American people a comprehensive national energy policy that can make it to the President's desk, that can become law, that begins to put the kind of effort together to produce the nearly 400,000-plus jobs that are available inside this bill spread over a decade of development and growth of the kind reflective in S. 14? How many of us got up this morning and simply walked over and flipped on the light switch and the lights came on? And how many mornings in one's life have they done that and the lights came on? Why, they come on every morning. We expect them to. We Americans have grown to believe that our energy is always there and always around us, and we take it for granted. My wife and I flew back from Idaho yesterday. With my wife and I sitting on that jet airliner, it consumed hundreds of gallons of jet fuel just to get us from Idaho to Washington, DC. We took it for granted. Thousands of other Americans were doing the same thing yesterday. They do it every day of the week. They go to the airport. They get on an airplane. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel later, they arrive at their destination and they take it all for granted. Somebody had to find it. Somebody had to transport it. Somebody had to refine it and somebody had to put it in the airplane. It is all energy. Our great country is as rich as it is today, and our people are as fortunate as they are, in large part because we have always been able to look 10, 15, and 20 years down the road and build the infrastructure and do the research and do the exploration that brought on continual flows of abundant, reasonably priced energy. It has only been in the last two decades that we stopped producing, but we kept on consuming, and gas prices began to go through the roof. Brownouts and blackouts began to occur because we were not allowed to look into the future and say: Here is where we are going and here is what we are going to produce. That is what S. 14 does. That is why it is so critical to our country at this moment in time that we become less dependent on foreign sources, more dependent on ourselves and our own production, our own initiative, our own capability, and we do so with conservation, with production, and that we are environmentally sensitive when we do it. That is all embodied in S. 14. Why are we going to let this languish when we need to be passing it and getting it to the President's desk? One more year? Two more years? Let gas prices to the average consumer go up $200 or $300 a month and just say that is okay when we know that through increased exploration and development that does not have to happen? So I challenge my colleagues over the course of the week that is at hand that we start tonight and we work through Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and, as our leader said, Friday and Saturday and beyond if necessary, and let's get our work done for the American people, let's amend, let's pass S. 14, a national energy policy, and get ourselves to conference with the House to make this issue happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, will be here soon to manage this bill for the remainder of the morning. But I want to say at the outset, we are now involved in a national energy policy debate that will run through the balance of next week. I thank to Senator Domenici, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for the way he has handled this critical issue for our Nation. He held thorough hearings on the importance of a balanced national energy policy for our country. Much of the lead was taken by our President when he took office over 2 years ago as he outlined this issue as one of the highest priorities for our country. Senator Domenici then began to work with all of us on that committee, Democrats and Republicans, to craft a truly bipartisan and balanced piece of legislation. That is S. 14, the bill we have before us, a national energy policy for our country. When I say ``balanced,'' Mr. President, as you know, one of the true problems in our country today is the failure to keep our energy production levels up with the demands of a growing economy. Largely through the decade of the 1990s, we lived off the surpluses we had generated by increased capacity being built in the decades of the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s. But that surplus ran out in the late 1990s. We began to see the blackouts and the brownouts in California. We began to see energy prices increase. Our dependency on oil from foreign nations progressively grew during the decade of the 1990s, from percentages in the low 40s to the 60s. And, of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, the senior Senator from Alaska, Alaska became during that period of several decades a prime producer of high-quality crude for this Nation, and still has tremendous oil reserves in Alaska that could be made available if the politics were allowed to let that happen. But that has not happened. Senator Domenici recognizes that, and in the crafting of this bill did a combination of things, in cooperation with all of us, to recognize the need to get this country back into the production of energy while at the same time recognizing the importance of conservation, recognizing the importance of our environment, and that the energies we produce in the decade of 2000 to 2010 and beyond be clean sources of energy, and also recognizing the application of technology and the development of hydrogen fuel cells and wind and photovoltaic. Also, the Senator from New Mexico and I have worked very closely over the last nearly two decades building a case for the return of the cleanest, most abundant source of energy for our country: electricity generated by the nuclear generation process and nuclear reactors. There has been a schism or a belief in our country that somehow this was not a safe way to generate electricity, and that we could not manage the waste stream produced from nuclear reactors. Quite the opposite is now true. Not only have we moved significantly in the development of a clean waste stream, but this legislation also speaks to what we now call Generation IV or new passive reactors this legislation would authorize the design and development of for future generations. This is, without question--other than wind, solar, and hydro--the cleanest form of energy we have because it can produce energy at high, sustained levels to meet the demand of a high-tech economy and, at the same time, do it very cleanly. This bill is a complete and balanced energy policy for our Nation. As I have said, it puts us back into the business of producing energy. It recognizes conservation. It recognizes technology. Our President has challenged us to develop hydrogen as a new source of transportation fuel for our country. This legislation deals with those issues, and I think it does so in not only a comprehensive and environmentally sensitive way, but it clearly recognizes that this economy runs on energy, period, end of statement. Every one of us today started our day using energy. The clock that awakened us, the radio that turned on was turned on by energy. The cool room we slept in last night was cooled by energy. Many of you probably brushed your teeth with an electric toothbrush this morning fueled by energy. The water that surged out of the tap in your bathroom or from the nozzle of your shower this morning--the pressure was produced by energy. And it goes on and on. When you went into your kitchen and opened the refrigerator to get out a glass of orange juice, the refrigerator was cooled by energy. The orange juice was processed by energy--and so on. Did you walk here this morning? If you did, you used your own energy, but it was generated by all those other sources of energy. But if you drove here, then you used the standard form of energy that has kept this economy so vibrant for so many decades. Without question, we are an energy-intensive, extensive, involved economy. Without an abundant, available source of energy in all forms, this economy does not function well or it becomes increasingly dependent on those nations that produce energy and sell it to us. Senator Domenici, myself, and others serving on the Energy Committee have recognized that, I believe, in a responsible way in S. 14. Now we have the opportunity to complete the debate on this legislation. There are hundreds of amendments that have been filed, and we will work very hard to get through all of them. But then all of them are not intended ever to be offered. They are merely offered as placeholders or for the political statement one of our colleagues may want to make as it relates to a constituent or to his or her particular views on energy. So we hope--and I think the Senator from New Mexico, who is now in the Chamber hopes--we can work our way through those amendments over the course of the next week as we move toward completion of this bill before the August recess. This bill has already been on the floor for hours over the course of the last several months, and we have had a variety of amendments already. So for anyone who will stand and wring their hands and say it cannot be completed by next week, they are simply saying: I don't want to complete it by next week--for whatever political purpose that might serve the individual. Our leader, Majority Leader Frist, says we will start early and work late; and we are prepared to do just that, starting on Monday with votes on this legislation and working through the remainder of the week. At this time I will yield the floor to the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and, once again, recognize him for the phenomenally hard work he has put into building a balanced national energy policy, reflected in S. 14. I hope by next Friday evening we will have finalized this bill, gone to final passage, and that this will be the year when we put on the desk of the President of the United States a futuristic program for the assurance of the development of energy for generations of Americans to come--that product which will fuel a vibrant economy for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for giving me a moment of time to address the stopgap supplemental funding bill that has just come back from the House. I come to the floor as frustrated as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, who spoke to the issue a few moments ago. Senator Domenici spoke, as did Senator Burns of Montana. It was 100 degrees in Idaho yesterday. For Idaho, that is hot. It has been that way for 3 weeks. We have dried up. We now have forest fires burning, with literally thousands of acres ablaze. We just lost two people in a wildfire in the middle of the week. Idaho, Montana, Nevada, eastern Washington, Oregon--all of us are afire at this moment. The supplemental money we put in for the Forest Service and for wildfires, which the House took out, was to replenish last year's accounts from which we had borrowed to fight last year's fires. The accounts we borrowed from were the very accounts that would allow people to go out on the ground for the purpose of rehabilitation, for doing the kinds of things necessary to begin to environmentally improve the land, the 7.5 million acres that burned last year in a phenomenal wildfire scenario. We are deeply into that already this year. Fires have burned extensively in Arizona, and as the heat has moved up the Great Basin States, along the Rocky Mountain ridge, of course, these fires now continue. Why the House has done this, I am not quite sure. They say there is plenty of money. There is not because the money was borrowed from the accounts of other areas within the Forest Service. That is a standard practice we have done in the past. But the problem is, by doing what the House did, we are not replenishing the accounts of last year that we borrowed from. We have always done that on a historical basis because one cannot measure or estimate how extensive a fire season will be, how many acres will burn, how many people will be employed. We have literally thousands of people in Idaho right now on the fire lines, as is true in other States in the West, and helicopters are flying, aerial bombers are flying, at this moment. A phenomenally large number of people are employed to stop the fires, protect the environment, and try to save the habitat, the wildlife and, in many instances, houses, private property, homes that are built up and within the forests of our country, up to and within the forests of our country. We are obviously going to have to address this in an emergency environment. I am extremely disappointed with what the House has done. I have talked with the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture who heads up the Forest Service, and the chief, and they are just a week away from having to again start borrowing out of the accounts that have not yet been replenished. So their capacity to pay back until we obviously appropriate is limited. We will continue to fight the fires. The fires will be fought. It is the rehabilitation, it is the restoration, that is funded by other accounts that will largely be denied.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill. Three fuel standard amendments were offered last night. Senators are encouraged to come to the floor during today's session to debate these pending amendments. Other amendments are expected during today's session with the hope of making further progress on the bill. There will be no rollcall votes today. But it is still the expectation that Members will be available to debate the amendments. Also, today it is expected that the Senate will debate the Free Trade Agreement relative to Chile and Singapore. Some Members have indicated that they desire to speak on these agreements today, and they will have that opportunity following the Energy bill. Under an order from last night, the next rollcall vote will occur on Monday at 5 p.m. That vote will be the nomination of Earl Yeakel to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas. Following the 5 p.m. vote on Monday, the Senate will also vote in relation to any available amendments to the Energy bill, as well as the Chile and Singapore trade agreements. Finally, a cloture motion will be filed today on Priscilla Owen's nomination to the United States Circuit for the Fifth Circuit. This will be the third cloture motion on this nomination. That vote will occur on Tuesday. I thank Members for their attention.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for no longer than 2 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the reason I ask for this privilege is to speak to my colleagues in the Senate about two families in Idaho who have just lost their sons fighting wildfires. My sympathy to the families of Jeff Allen of Salmon, ID, and Shane Heath of the Treasure Valley of Idaho. These brave men lost their lives while trying to save our public lands from a catastrophic wildfire in the Salmon-Challis National Forest, this past Tuesday, July 22. Both men were experienced firefighters of the Indianola Helitack Crew. My heart and prayers are with the family and friends of these two firefighters and the Forest Service firefighting family. Jeff Allen was 23 years old and had been a firefighter since 1999. He started working on the Salmon-Challis National Forest on a thinning crew on the Salmon-Cobalt District in 1998. He served successfully in fighting devastating fires on the Salmon-Challis National Forest during the 2000 fire season. Jeff was a marketing major at Boise State University. Shane Heath was 22 years old and this was his fourth season with the Forest Service. He served on the Helitack crew as a certified sawyer and was also a student at Boise State University. The tragic loss of these two men will be felt throughout their communities and their selfless acts of true bravery will not be forgotten. I commend the men and women who risk their lives every day by undertaking this terribly dangerous job with courage and professionalism. Thousands of young men and women are on the fire fronts of the wildfires that are now sweeping across the West. As we enter the middle of fire season, with the devastating heat that we are having in the Great Basin, and the West, I hope that we do not lose another fire fighter to wildfire.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Turning to the Senator from North Dakota, I thank him for the time he has allotted me. I think he is going to be talking about trade and possibly the Singapore and the Chilean free-trade agreements. The Senator and I worked cooperatively together on a lot of trade issues, and cochair a caucus on the Hill. The Senator who is in the chair at this moment is as frustrated as I am about these current free-trade agreements in front of us, because our trade ambassador has stepped into an arena that is frankly none of his business, if I can be so blunt, and that is immigration law. I think the Senator from North Dakota is as frustrated by that as I am. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, has crafted a sense of the Senate I am looking at that will speak very boldly to the fact that if the trade ambassador wants to send up other free-trade agreements-- Senator Sessions and I serve on the Judiciary Committee, we will be blunt about it--we are not going to let them out. This ambassador is an appointed person, not an elected person. He does not have the right to go in and write immigration law. That is not his prerogative. If he has to discuss it, if he wants it to become a part of a trade agreement, then he must tell foreign countries he will offer legislation to Congress to review for the purposes of adjusting trade law, if necessary, where it fits and where a majority of the Congress can and will support it. The two trade agreements that are in front of us are very frustrating to this Senator because I think we have a trade ambassador who has overstepped his authority and I think it is time we tell him that in as clear language as we possibly can. I yield the floor.