Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are now resuming debate on S. 14, the national energy policy for our country. I have been on the floor several times over the last number of weeks as we have debated different amendments. Yesterday, there were a couple of critical votes as it related to nuclear. We have a derivatives amendment at this time by the Senator from California, and I think the Senator from Nevada has a second degree on it. A fundamental question again emerges, and emerged yesterday at a hearing on the Hill, with the statement of our Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan as to the importance of a national energy policy. Why is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who is interested in the prime rate and the management of monetary supply of our country, concerned about energy? It is fundamental why he is concerned about energy. He is concerned about the economy of our country and its strength, stability, and ability to grow and provide jobs for the men and women who currently do not have them, and to strengthen and stabilize those jobs for the men and women who currently do have jobs. What was he talking about yesterday? He was talking about one of the primary feed stocks for energy in our country, natural gas; the problems that we currently have with the supply of natural gas because this country has not effectively explored and developed, for a variety of reasons, our natural gas supply. In the context of not providing supply, we have provided extraordinary demands on the current supply. Under the Clean Air Act, to meet those clean air standards, and out in the Western States and those air sheds specifically, the only way you can meet those standards and bring a new electrical generating plant on line is to choose to use gas to fire a turbine, to generate electricity. That is a tremendously inefficient way to use the valuable commodity of natural gas, but that is exactly what the Federal Government has told our utilities over the last two decades: If you are going to bring a new generation on line, it will be a gas-fired electrical turbine. Coal has problems; we are working on clean coal technology. This legislation embodies trying to get us to a cleaner technology to fire the coal electrical generation in our country. As a result, what are we talking about? What has been said and what we believe to be true is that there is now rapidly occurring a major shortage in natural gas. As a result, that is not only going to drive up the cost to the consumer in his or her individual home--and I will read from an article: Another witness, Donald Mason, head of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, predicted that the average residential heating bill next winter will be at least $220 higher per household than last winter. That is a real shock to an economy and to a household and why Alan Greenspan is obviously worried that you spread that across a consuming nation, and we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars pulled out of the economy to go to the cost of heating when it had not been the case before. That was one of the concerns. The other concern is the tremendous price hike we are seeing at this time and the impact that will have. Gas prices have nearly doubled in the past year to about $6.31 per Btu, and there is a 25-percent change expected. We expect prices to peak and we have seen one instance, about 3 months ago, over a 200-percent increase in the price of natural gas as a spike in the market. S. 14 is legislation to help facilitate the construction of a major delivery system out of Alaska. In Alaska at this moment we are pumping billions of Btu's of gas back into the ground because we simply cannot transport it to the lower 48 States, and we do not want to flare it into the atmosphere as has been the approach in the past in gasfields. It is too valuable a commodity, and we do not want to do that to the environment. We have also looked at other opportunities for access. Part of the difficulty today is delivery systems and building gas pipelines across America. This legislation has provisions to help facilitate more of that as it relates to right of way and, of course, the recognition of the environmental need and the consequence and appropriate adjustment there. What Alan Greenspan underlines in his comments, what Donald Mason from the Ohio Public Utilities Commission underlines, was what Spence Abraham said last Friday when he called for a June 26 meeting of the National Petroleum Council to talk about this impending gas shortage crisis: Our country needs a national energy policy. I hope all of my colleagues rally to that reality. Why should we force upon the American consumer a $200- or $300-increase in their energy costs next year simply because this Senate and this Congress will not do its work or can't do its work? We debated mightily a year ago an energy policy. We got it to a conference. The differences were too great. Ultimately, we could not arrive at a final product to go to our President's desk. What Senator Domenici has done as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is craft a broad-based national energy policy that is as much production as it is conservation. It is as much new technology as it is the advancement and the improving of existing technology. It is truly a broad-based national energy policy for our country. More gas? Yes. More coal usage? Yes. More wind usage? Yes. More photovoltaic or sunlight usage? You bet. The development of new, safe, clean, more effective utilization of nuclear? Absolutely. Why shy away from any energy source at this moment when we are forcing them on the American consumer and the economy of this country is increasing costs in the area of energy? Lastly, when we do all of that and we drive up the costs of the job itself and the cost of the product produced by that job, we make ourselves increasingly less competitive around the world. I was out in the Silicon Valley this weekend. I met with 50 CEOs of high-technology companies in San Jose. They are interested in a lot of issues, but their No. 1 issue is energy and the ability to know that when they build a plant in this country, whether it is in California or in any other State, they are going to be guaranteed a supply of high- quality constant energy. The reality is when they do not have it, they will shop elsewhere to build that plant. If they can't get quality sustainable energy in this country, then they will go elsewhere. That means U.S. jobs go to some other country. Shame on us as a country for having failed for the last decade to produce a national energy policy, and in failing to do so, bringing Alan Greenspan to the Hill to talk about an impending energy crisis again in domestic supply of gas, and to have a utility commissioner talk about a $220-per-year increase in the cost of heating the average American home by natural gas. Less food on the table, less money in the college trust fund for the children--all of those could be the consequence of a home that is unemployed, a home that has to choose between staying warm and doing other things. In a cold winter, ultimately, they will want to stay warm and they will have to pay their heating bill. We should not ask Americans to make that choice if it is our failure to produce a national energy policy and to produce energy that has caused them to have to make that choice. That is the issue. I hope the Senate will expedite the passage of S. 14. We have been on it now nearly 4 weeks, 3 weeks to be exact. We are being told there are hundreds of amendments out there. There are not hundreds of amendments on this side of the aisle. There are a few. We ought to ask, and I hope we can get by the end of business this week, a finite list and a unanimous consent that will bring this issue together so we can say to our colleagues and to the American people: The Senate is ultimately going to vote on this legislation, help produce a national energy policy, get it into conference with the House, and get it on the President's desk as soon as we possibly can. Not only does the absence of a national policy have a negative impact on our economy, the presence of one--this legislation--could have a tremendously positive impact. Many have said in the analysis of S. 14, there are 500,000 new jobs in this legislation alone. That could be more jobs that would be created over the next 10 years by this legislation than could be created by the economic stimulus package, although we believe that will have a tremendously positive impact. That is why we are here in the Chamber debating it. I am frustrated by those who say: Oh, no, not now; we can't do this; we can't do that; or we have hundreds of amendments; or we are obstructing or dragging our feet. Let's get a unanimous consent agreement. Let's get Senators to bring those amendments to the floor. I am certainly willing to debate them. I think we ought to vote on them. The American people ought to sort us out and see who is for energy production in this country, who is for driving down the projected costs to the average home when it comes to their heating bill, who is in favor of creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in clean technology, environmentally sound technology, and making this Nation once again self-reliant in the area of energy. S. 14 is critical legislation. We ought to be voting on it now. We ought not be dragging our feet or, in some instances, obstructing. The debate is critical. Senators, bring your amendments to the floor. The chairman has pleaded with us time and time again to craft a unanimous consent agreement. The Senator from Nevada, the whip for Democrats, has worked with us to try to get a unanimous consent agreement. If, on Friday, we cannot produce a unanimous consent agreement of the body of amendments that will finally be offered and debated on this bill, then it begins to look as if somebody is obstructing this process, somebody simply does not want it to go forward in an effective way to finalize and produce for this country a national energy policy. I certainly hope we can get on with the business that the Senate does best--get to the floor, debate the issues, offer the amendments, vote on them, and ultimately get this legislation to our President's desk so our country can once again stand tall and strong in the field of energy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate those comments. I think we are all frustrated, when we have an issue as mature as this issue is, not to be able to define an arena of amendments and get a unanimous consent agreement that sets a course of action for us. To me, that is what defines progress and ultimate conclusion of what we do on the floor. As I said earlier, I welcome all amendments that Senators want to have come to the floor. Let's get at the business of debating them and voting on them. When I see an hour quorum call because we cannot get somebody to come to the floor to offer an amendment--and I know the manager of the bill, the chairman of the Energy Committee, has worked mightily to get that done--I have to begin to question what is our intent here. I am extremely pleased that the Senator from Nevada has recognized the possibility of getting a unanimous consent with a group. I did mention in my remarks that I know the Senator worked to accomplish that, and I appreciate that. But in the absence of doing that, it appears we are wandering a bit in a wilderness of undefinable amendments and no determination as to when we can conclude this process. It is extremely pleasing to hear we may ultimately get that done because this is a critical issue.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Six point five million dollars.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are beginning this week again debating a national energy policy for our country, an issue whose time clearly has come, an issue that should have been resolved well over a year ago, but because of the difficulties and differences of approach, that was an impossible resolution. I will never forget the day I met in our majority leader's office with the then-elect President George Bush. He had not yet taken the oath of office. He was not yet our President. While he talked about a lot of his campaign promises and the priorities he would bring with his leadership in the Presidency, he said at that time--and honored it immediately when he became President--first and foremost for this country was the desperate need for a national energy policy. He, of course, upon becoming President, assigned Vice President Dick Cheney to build a task force and make recommendations to Congress, proposals that should be contained within a national energy policy for our country. Let's remember, it was not a decade ago. It was not 30 years ago. It was just a few years ago that our President was reacting to what had gone on in California with brownouts, blackouts, and a frustrated population, and a very concerned economy that no longer were we the masters of our own energy fate; that somehow we had become increasingly dependent on foreign countries for hydrocarbons, or oil, and even within our own structures of systems of delivery and interconnection of electricity and pipelines for gas we were no longer as independent, strong, and self-reliant as we had been; that some while over the course of the nineties, as our economy grew, we were not replacing or building new infrastructure to serve that economy, we were simply relying on the surplus and the old infrastructure that it delivered for that energy. And all of that was true. The President made his proposals. We crafted a policy, and when the majority in the Senate changed, the Energy Committee was shut down and a new bill was crafted in the office of the then majority leader, Tom Daschle. The bill came to the floor. We had the debate. It ultimately got into conference, but we could not produce a final product for our President. The differences between our parties and our interests were too great. This year the Energy Committee, under the leadership of Pete Domenici, in a bipartisan way, held the hearings, held the markups, and what we have before us today is that legislation, a bill that is bipartisan, that has a broad range of interests in it, and really serves what I call the market-basket approach to energy, not that we have decided one source of energy is going to be the future of our country. We have learned differently about all of that in the last decade or two. There are multiple sources and there are different markets and different economies that demand different kinds of energy. Clearly, to advance electrical production in this country from a coal-fired base, we have clean coal technology built within this bill so that we can build future coal plants for electrical production that are less emitting and cleaner. Within the bill, there is a hydro relicensing provision that will allow us to relicense the hundreds of hydro facilities that now serve impoundments on our river systems, and do so in a much more environmentally sound way that will become more fish friendly but will still allow us to maintain that very clean base of electrical energy known as hydro. It is very important, where I come from and where the Presiding Officer comes from, that these facilities remain productive and, at the same time, as we relicense them, that they can be retrofitted to meet the demands of a new attitude, a new understanding of the management of our river systems. In this bill also are the underpinnings of the hydrogen economy that could in the future fuel the transportation needs of our country. The Dorgan amendment that is before us today deals with those goals about which we talk. We have been investing as a country for some time in hydrogen fuel cell technology. About 2\1/2\ or 3 years ago, I was at Dearborn, MI, at the Ford engineering facilities and test track. While I was there, I drove a new hydrogen fuel cell car. It was a car about the size of a Ford Taurus. It had a hydrogen fuel cell within it that powered electric motors on all four tires. It was a marvelous, quietly running car. I got in, sat down, turned on the key, and nothing happened except the dashboard lit up, and pretty soon the dashboard said: Go. I stepped down on the accelerator, and away I went. There was a small whirring sound as the hydrogen fuel cell generated fuel that produced electricity that sent it out to the electrical motors on each one of these four tires. When I was out on the test track with the engineer, he said: Pick it up; speed it up a little bit. It had been raining, and as I went around one corner of the test track, I slipped a little bit, and he suggested rather sheepishly that we probably ought to slow down. I was willing to do that in his car, his baby. He pioneered and helped develop this car. He said there is another reason besides safety to slow this car down. This car is worth about $6.5 million, and they did not want to lose that very expensive automobile. I did not realize at that time I was driving probably one of the most expensive automobiles ever built. It was a prototype. It was obviously not an assembly-line vehicle. What I drove that day convinced me that in the future, if we choose to pursue it, we clearly can have, in part, not in toto, a hydrogen- based transportation fuel system in our country. Is, therefore, the Dorgan approach the right approach at this time? Should we start making it mandatory to set targets that are absolute or need to be met? I question that, and I do so most sincerely because I want to move us and our knowledge base and invest in a hydrogen base. Where do we get the hydrogen and how does it get delivered? Do we forget that gas station on each corner of every community did not just happen, that it took years and billions of dollars' worth of investment to develop the delivery system we have today by a myriad of companies investing their stockholder money and their profits in a delivery system? That is exactly what it took. That did not happen by accident. To automatically suggest we are now going to have a hydrogen-based transportation system and that all of these new hydrogen refueling stations will occur overnight is a phenomenal stretch. That is the delivery system, and that delivery system alone would cost billions of dollars and, clearly, as we transition, if we do, into a hydrogen-based transportation system, it will take time and cost a lot of money. Where do we get the hydrogen? Today we tend to get hydrogen from a hydrogen-rich supply--natural gas. But natural gas today is increasingly in less supply and more demand because of the Clean Air Act and because we decided years ago that if we were going to put additional electrical production in line, it could be a gas-fired electric turbine. It met our clean air standards. All of a sudden, we began to consume a fuel that was once in surplus and is now becoming scarce. Some 3 months ago, its price spiked to over 260 percent of the average price. Should we be directing ourselves toward that, and should we be setting targets without an alternative supply of hydrogen? In other words, that is why, if you are going to set targets and limitations and goals--and maybe there is a day when we do--it is my argument and my belief that the Dorgan amendment is substantially premature with regard to that point. Let me tell my colleagues why. In the overall parent bill we are debating, the national energy policy itself, there is a title that in time will begin to produce for this country an ample hydrogen fuel base and not use natural gas as its source. It is to develop, along with the new, safe, what we call passive generation for a nuclear reactor, an electrolysis system where water can be effectively converted into hydrogen. It is a technology that we know is doable. What is most important is that it is doable at much less cost and no demand on our natural gas base. Why would it be at less cost, especially if it is allowed to be facilitated and built within a nuclear reactor? Nuclear reactors operate best if they are operated at a constant load, but electricity is not used in a constant pattern, whether it is morning and one is cooking breakfast or it is a hot day and one is using air-conditioning or a cold day and using heat. All of that is variable within a range and within a market. So there are up and down supplies. There is peak load and there is soft load, or less load. The beauty of tying to a nuclear reactor a hydrogen electrolysis system as we believe to be engineeringly and technically very possible today--it is why within this bill we authorized the development of a prototype-- is the reactor can then be run at a constant load where it performs for the least amount of money, and when it is peaking for electrical demand purposes, the power is shifted over there. When those demand loads come down, the power is shifted over to hydrogen gas production, and it is alternated back and forth from electrolysis to online transmission, from electrolysis to online transmission, based on the demand load at the time, while the reactor is operating constantly. What I would therefore say about goals and targets within an area of fuel cell technology today, and supply, is let's get the supply at least started in place and the technologies to develop that supply proven effectively before we begin to put targets on governmental fleets or other fleets as we begin to cause the transportation of our economy to shift toward hydrogen. Having said all of that, the oil industry, oil per se, for the foreseeable future will continue to fuel a very large part of our transportation needs in this country. That is a reality. It is something that we probably ought not force to cause to be different, but we ought to create and put in place the technologies that allow the transfer, that allow the movement, and that ultimately allow the capitalization of a new form of energy that we believe is hydrogen, and we believe this works. The chairman of the full authorizing committee, who is the author of this legislation, is in the Chamber, so I yield to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici.

Mr. CRAIG. Good.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the senior Senator from New Mexico for what really has become a very thoughtful and methodical approach toward resolving a national energy debate, and bringing us legislation that not all parties agree on but clearly is that abundant market basket full of ideas and concepts and realities, we believe, that bring this country once again toward energy self-sufficiency, and our ability to stand on our feet and be proud that we are what we are as a country. Our great strength has always been in our abundance of relatively inexpensive energy. It has driven our economy. It powers us up as a great country. Without doubt, it is what lights up the computer screens of our country and has made us the leading high-tech manufacturer in the world. I was in San Jose, CA, this weekend speaking to a group. There were about 50 CEOs from high-tech companies from the valley, the heart of the Silicon Valley. We call it Silicon Valley West because right here at the beltway in northern Virginia is what I call Silicon Valley East, the heart and home of the Internet systems and internet companies. While I was talking about technology, they wanted to know about energy. In that valley they demand a high quality of electrical generation, constant power loads to feed their manufacturing facilities. They are very frustrated because of the problems California has had, which has been in part a policy issue and in part a transmission problem. All of those problems are embodied in our legislation. That is why it is important we resolve and get to our President's desk a bill so we can help the energy segment of our economy get on its feet and get moving again for the sake of all. I have said several times, and I think most agree, this legislation, S. 14, has more new jobs to be created in the next 4 to 5 years than the stimulus package. While the stimulus package was critically important, and I voted for it and it already appears to be turning on the economy across this country, the long-term infrastructure investment for the energy industries of our country that will fuel our homes and light up our computer screens in the future is embodied in this bill. That is why it becomes so important for everyone. Let me step back to hydrogen for a moment. I have no difficulty with the Senator from North Dakota proposing legislation that said agencies ought to submit annual plans and reports that look at transition and talk about and build a system or a mechanism for transition to a hydrogen economy as these technologies develop, as these new production capabilities come on line. That would be a right and appropriate thing to do in light of where the technology of this industry is. I have visited with hydrogen fuel cell engineers, scientists who study this area. They are telling me it would be very hard to measure. They are suggesting we need to prove the worth of this technology to the American consumer--``worth'' meaning a sense of safety. A lot of folks are wondering, Is a hydrogen car going to be safe? They fail to recognize that a gas- powered car that they assume is safe sometimes is not as safe as we think it is. There have been fires and explosions. Is a hydrogen car safe? We believe they can be manufactured to be every bit as safe as a gas-powered car, if not safer. But how do you prove it? One of the ways is to get hydrogen used in the economy before it is transitioned to transportation. How does that happen? The development of hydrogen fuel cells that actually fuel homes, manufacturing plants, other facilities that are perhaps less adjacent to or isolated from transmission capability. To have a hydrogen fuel cell that can actually produce enough power for a factory is not unreasonable to assume, or a single home in a rural setting. Once that consumerism begins to develop in this country and there is a general understanding that hydrogen is a part of our energy economy, the reality of transition to a transportation base is probably even greater. Maybe they go equally together. But I know the scientists and the engineers are thinking one or the other or both; one before the other. Part of it all comes together at some point. I believe it can. I, along with Senator Domenici and others who study energy sources for our country as members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have spent a long time looking at this as a concept to be explored. As the Senator from New Mexico mentioned, we are committing a lot of public resources to this. We ought to. It is clean. What happens to the exhaust system of a hydrogen-powered fuel cell? No emission, except a drop of water. So there is no emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Interestingly enough, when you use natural gas to create hydrogen, the process creates an emissions problem. When you use electrolysis of water to create hydrogen, you do not. So there is another reason to examine and build on the technology of electrolysis. We think the natural blend, the hand in glove, if you will, the synergy that can be created by new passive nuclear reactors that are safe, cool in operation, automatic shutdowns, but can do the constant load, that can create the economies of optimum operation and therefore at great cost saving to the consumer, is a technology that ought to be developed and is embodied within S. 14. I will now, therefore, have to oppose the Dorgan amendment for all of those reasons. It is not time to require the acquisition in the market. It is time to push the technology. It is time to ask for the reports. It is time for this Senate to be able to understand progress and growth and development in this area and the likelihood of a time down the road when more and more of our economy will actually be using hydrogen as an energy base. It is with that I come to the floor to debate this amendment. I hope as we get to it tomorrow and a vote in the Senate, as the chairman has spoken to, that Senators will consider the reality that this is not the time for targets. This is not the time for hard goals. This is a time for pushing the technology, building on it, encouraging the private sector to marry up with the public sector, to advance the technology, and it may well be time for the Department of Energy to be required to report and analyze on an annual basis for our sake, for those who make public policy, the reality of these technologies. I yield the floor and 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 a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 19 at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to gain an understanding of the grazing programs of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. The Subcommittee will receive testimony on grazing permit renewal, BLM's potential changes to grazing regulations, range monitoring, drought and other grazing issues. This hearing will also provide the basis for other grazing hearings that we may want to undertake at the subcommittee level as the year goes on. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, 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 Meghan Beal at 202-224-7556 or Meghan__Beal@energy.senate.gov.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have arrived at a time and a defined period for debate on the Wyden amendment to subtitle B of this act. I think it is critical that we bring this issue to the forefront and make a decision on it. The Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Energy Committee, has done an excellent job in the last 20 minutes outlining the dynamics of this major piece of legislation for our country and the kinds of issues embodied in it that are so critical to all of us as we debate the general issue of energy and this particular subtitle that relates to the development of new technology but, more importantly, the deployment of the concept of new reactor design into actual producing reactors in the United States. The Senator from New Mexico is so accurate in his overall review of where we are as a nation with energy or the absence thereof. My colleague from Oregon and I live in the Pacific Northwest, where hydro is dominant as a part of our energy-producing capability. Even that marvelous, clean resource today is under attack. Why? Because it impounds rivers to produce hydro, and by impounding rivers, it changes the character of those rivers. Certain interest groups want those rivers, in large part, by some estimation, to be freed. So they wanted to reshape hydro. In all instances, it has reduced the overall productive capability of hydro facilities. We have frustration in a variety of other areas. The Senator from New Mexico outlined our problem with burning coal under the Clean Air Act, and the ambient air as a result of that, and the cost now being driven against retrofitting and new coal-burning designs to produce energy. That is in part--not in total but in part--what has developed a willingness on the part of our country, I believe, to renew our nuclear option and possibly to renew it under a new design concept, under a passive reactor design concept that the Senator from New Mexico has talked about. Passive reactor design means, simply, one that reacts on its own when certain conditions arise. The human factor doesn't necessarily have to be there to start throwing switches and making adjustments because those kinds of things happen automatically. We believe our engineering talent in this country is now capable of that kind of design development. In doing that design, we would couple with it an electrolysis process that would make the reactor itself so much more efficient that it would run at peak load at all times, as reactors should in performing best. But power demand isn't always constant. When you can switch that load to development of hydrogen fuels, through the electrolysis process, and then convert it back to use within a power grid, you make for phenomenal efficiencies and the cost of production goes down dramatically. In doing that, in bringing back to this country an abundant source of electrical energy and a reliable supply to our grid system--a system we are working to improve today through the development of regional transmission authorities and a variety of other things that tie us together--we found out a few years ago in the Pacific Northwest that it has certain liabilities. If the energy in the system itself in other parts of the grid isn't abundant, and it starts pulling power from us and forcing our power rates up, it can be a problem. Where it is produced with an abundance in the system and the system is fully interrelated and interconnected all can generally benefit. As a result of bringing some of these new concepts on line, where we are actively subsidizing other areas of production, we thought it was reasonable to bring to the floor of the Senate a similar concept, to take some of the risk out of new design development for the commercial side, and to do so in a way that our country has always done--to use public resources to advance certain technological causes and, out of those causes and their development, to generate phenomenal consumer benefits. There is no greater consumer benefit in this country today than reliable, high-quality electrical energy at reasonable prices. Our world runs on it. Our world's wealth depends on it. This country's workforce depends on it. What we have brought to the floor in this Energy bill is not a hunt and a pick. It is not a political decision versus another political decision. That is not the case. It is not green versus nongreen. That is not the case. What the chairman of the Energy Committee has said in this bill, and what the committee itself has said, is that all energy is good energy as long as it meets certain standards, and as long as it fits within our environmental context, we ought to promote it and we ought to advance it. That is exactly what this bill does. As the Senator from New Mexico characterized it a few moments ago, we have enough credit in this bill to put windmills about anywhere they want to go, or are allowed to go, to produce energy. Some would say that is great, we don't need anything else. Oh, yes, we do. The reason we do is you can put a windmill everywhere you can in the air sheds that can produce wind energy, and you can only get up to about 2 percent of total demand. That is about it. But we ought to do it because it is clean and it is renewable and it is the right thing to do. But what we are already finding out in my State of Idaho that has a couple of wind sheds that fit, if this bill passes, interest groups are stepping up and saying: Oh, I don't think we want that windmill there; that is a spike-tail grouse habitat; there are some Indian artifacts there and we certainly don't want them damaged. And we don't. What I am suggesting is in these most desirable of wind sheds for windmills, there is going to be somebody stepping up and saying ``not here.'' And they are right. They probably won't go there. That is public land, by the way, not private land. On some private land, the same argument will occur. Simply, they don't want in their backyard a machine that goes whomp, whomp, whomp and produces electricity. Something about the sound disturbs their sleep. As a result, my guess is some city ordinance will soon suggest, ``not in my backyard.'' But there are some backyards where we can put wind machines and we will and we already have and we ought to promote it and we ought not to be selective, and we are subsidizing them by a tax credit. You bet we are. We are going to pass that provision. That is the right and the appropriate thing to do. We have subsidized in most instances, in one form or another, through a tax credit or through an easing of regulation or through the ability to site on Federal lands, energy projects, historically, because our country, our Government, this Senate for well over 100 years has said: The best thing we can do for this country to make it grow, to make it prosper, and to make it abundant to the working men and women of America is a reasonable and available energy supply in whatever form the marketplace takes. We also know we can shape the market a bit by a subsidy, by a tax credit, and we also do that. We are going to do some wind. We are going to do some solar in here. We hope we do clean coal technology. Certainly the coal-producing States of our country want to keep producing coal, and they should. We should use it, and we will. There is a provision in here on which Senator Bingaman and I disagree a little; that is, on the relicensing of hydro. We think it ought to be relicensed and environmentally positive. When we can retrofit it and shape it, we ought to do so as we relicense it into the next century. But hydro produces a nice chunk of power in this country today. We are going to relicense over 200 facilities in the next decade. That represents about 15 million American homes and 30 million megawatts of power. Any reduction in that productive capability means we have to produce that power somewhere else. Some of those old plants, when relicensed and retrofitted, may lose some of their productive capability in the licensing process. We ought to have new supplies coming on line. Several years ago, this Senate became involved in a very serious debate over an issue that we call climate change. We became involved as a nation internationally in this debate because we thought it was the right thing to do. We knew our global environment was heating, or appeared to be heating, faster than it had in the past, and we didn't know why. Some argued it was the emission of greenhouse gases which created a greenhouse effect around our globe which was largely a product of the burning of hydrocarbons and that we ought to do something about it. Many of us were very concerned that if we didn't have the right modeling and the right measurement and the right facts to make those decisions, we would shape public policy and head it in a direction that was not appropriate and would allocate billions of dollars of new resources that might put tens of thousands of people out of work if we did it wrong. At the same time, there has been and there remains a nagging concern as to the reality of this particular situation globally, environmentally. Or is it simply the natural characteristic of the changing world and evolving changing world? We have known down through geologic time that this world has heated and cooled and heated and cooled. Is it the natural cycle? We didn't know that. But out of all of it, we generally grew to believe that the less emission into the atmosphere the better off we would be. This bill embodies that general philosophy--that clean energy and clean fuels are better, that we ought to advance them, that we ought to subsidize them where necessary, and that we ought to plot them through the public policy which we debate here on the floor today. Out of all of that, we knew one thing: Energy generated by nuclear-fueled generating systems was clean with no emissions. It is the cleanest source in the country other than hydro with no emissions. As a result of that, there was no question that the popularity of that consensus began to grow. Other nations around the world were using it. The senior Senator from New Mexico spoke of France and their use of it. Japan, a nation once very fearful of the atom, now builds almost a reactor a year coming on line to produce--what? Power for its citizens, power for its economy, and power for its workforce. We once led the world in that technology. But we fell dramatically behind over the last three decades because there was a public perception fueled by some and feared by some that the nuclear-generating facilities of our country were not safe. Yet they have this phenomenal history of safe operation. Through the course of all of this, and as the facilities aged, as they were relicensed and retrofitted, guess what happened over the course of the last few years. As we spiked in our power demands at the peak of the economy in the late 1990s and as electrical prices went through the roof, the cost of operating reactors was stable; it was constant. They became the least cost producers of electricity of any generating capacity in the country other than existing hydro. The world began to react in a favorable way to that. All of that became a part of the production of the legislation before us now--to once again get this great country back into the business of the research and development of new reactor systems that not only are in every way perceived to be safer and cleaner in the sense of waste production at end of the game, but would do something else for our country in a way that we think is the right direction; that is, the development of hydrogen to fuel the next generation of surface transportation and to start growing our economy into an age of hydrogen-fueled systems, fuel cells, generating electricity, turning the wheels of automobiles, trucks, and other forms of transportation; and, on a case-by-case basis, the potential of a fuel cell to light a home, to fuel and light a given industry by having one of those on location. We believe all of those things are possible. What I hope is that the Senate will agree with us that it is now time to lead in all aspects of energy production in this country instead of nibbling around the edges selectively and politically determining what ought to be and what ought not to be because one individual thinks this way is better than another. I have dealt with the energy issue all of my political life. While at one time I will honestly admit I was selective, I am no longer that. I support it all. I am voting for wind. I am voting for clean coal. I want to develop a responsible relicensing system for hydro. I am supporting nuclear development and nuclear growth. I am supporting oil production. Why? I don't want future generations of this country to be fuel-starved and victim to the politics of a region of the world which is unstable because this Senate didn't have the wisdom to produce when it could have and create incentives and maximum energy production for our country. That is what this bill is about. The Senator from Oregon chooses to be selective for a moment in time. I wish he wouldn't be. I understand why he is. I think he is wrong.

Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to yield in just a moment. I think the Senator from Oregon is wrong on this issue. I think it is a form of selectivity as it relates to our willingness as a country to use public resources in the advancement of all forms of energy resources as the kind that is offered by the committee to, once a new reactor design is developed, allow for loan guarantees to guarantee up to about 8,400 megawatts of electrical development through nuclear reactor construction. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for bringing up that issue. There are red herrings. Maybe some of them are blue and some of them are green, as we debate these issues. I don't know what a red herring really is here. I do know that when you sit a group of economists or accountants down and say, project backwards over the last 20 years or 30 years as it relates to the cost of developing nuclear reactors, and/or their failure--and out in the Pacific Northwest we had some that were funded and then brought down because the economy and the politics would not accept them--if you do that, you might get to a 50-percent risk factor. If you project forward to a new concept design that is under a new Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process that meets the demand of the electrical systems, that is a cleaner process, that drives down the cost--and my colleague, the senior Senator from New Mexico talked about the new concepts in Taiwan; one of them may well be built here-- my guess is they did not factor that in. Because those are all things you and I, as Senators, will insist upon and do over the next decade, and that when we do that, the risk factors come down dramatically. But this is what the Senator from Oregon and I need to look at. You came to the Congress how many years ago?

Mr. CRAIG. In 1980. In 1980, the United States was about 35-percent dependent on foreign hydrocarbons, foreign oil. Now, there were some folks out there saying: Boy, if we don't get busy here, we could someday be 40-percent dependent. Well, they were right. We did not get busy. In fact, we increasingly restricted the ability to refine and the ability to discover and the ability to produce, and by 1984 or 1985, we were at 45 percent. And that kept going on. What is the risk factor there? We know what the risk factor is. The risk factor is, we did not do anything and we are now over 50-percent dependent, and in some instances as high as 65 percent, give or take, dependent on foreign oil sources. You see what has happened at the pump. I don't know what you or I were paying for gas in 1980 but it was well under $1 a gallon. Now we are paying $1.55, $1.60 a gallon for regular fuel. The average household is spending a great deal more on energy today than it did in 1980. We did not develop a policy. We did quite the opposite. We began to restrict the ability to produce, whether or not it was hydrocarbons. We have not brought on line a nuclear reactor, fire-generating system for the purpose of electrical production in the last 10 or 12 years. One got started under construction, and, of course, as we know in the Pacific Northwest, we actually stopped construction on some. Are there risks? You bet. There is no zero-sum game here. There isn't anything you or I could possibly legislate. But there is a reality; the reality is that energy prices in Oregon shot through the roof in the last 3 years and the energy prices in Idaho went up dramatically. The cost of living in the State of Oregon and the economy of the State of Oregon reeled under the hit, as is true of the State of Idaho. I am not, anymore, going to stand here and be selective on the production of and the future opportunity to produce energy for this country because I want to get your State's economy moving and my State's economy moving. (Mr. CRAPO assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. I am pleased the Senator brought this issue forward because you and I live in an environment in the Pacific Northwest that was substantially subsidized by American taxpayers to produce a massive electrical system known as the Bonneville Power Administration--direct appropriations of hundreds of millions of dollars to build a hydro system in the Snake and Columbia watersheds and in other places. These were not loan guarantees. They were just outright expenditures to be paid back. They have been paid back over a long period of time, and we are continuing to pay them back. So the American taxpayer, to our benefit, has always been on the hook in the Pacific Northwest for the production of energy. In fact, you and I worked to just get some borrowing capability for Bonneville to expand its transmission system--a big chunk of money. We fought for that, and we should have. Why? Because it will generally benefit the Pacific Northwest. It is not a loan guarantee. It is an outright appropriation to be paid back.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full Energy Committee and the primary author of this legislation for making what are extremely important clarifying points in relation to the Wyden amendment that would strike this provision of subtitle (b) as it relates to the deployment of new nuclear plants. In another life, I once studied real estate and had a real estate license. I know when you try to assess the value of a piece of property, you do what is called a comparable appraisal. You find other properties that are comparable in size, productive capability, if it is a house in square footage, in age, in all of those features. You say that in the marketplace, this house is worth about so much because the comparables, one that has recently sold that is like it or near like it, cost about this much. When it comes to our ability to project the cost of a nuclear powerplant in construction in 2011, there are no U.S. comparables. We are talking about all kinds of new things. We are talking about a new design, a GEN-IV passive reactor design. What size are we talking about, 600-, 800-, 1,000-megawatt plant? Under what kind of regulatory authority? Has the license been developed and what are the peculiarities, the particulars, the specifications within the license? We don't know that. You cannot effectively project. What you can do is exactly what this subtitle does. It gives the Secretary of Energy authority to examine, to make a determination based on fixed criteria that we have placed in the law to protect the public resource. We are going to make the assumption in 2011 that the Secretary of Energy and his or her staff are bright, talented, clear- thinking people who will have to operate under the law. The reason they will have to operate under the law? Because if this is a loan guarantee, it becomes a part of their budget, it becomes scored, and the Congress of the United States has to appropriate the money or at least offset it because it is a guarantee in the market. That is how it works. I am not going to be here then, more than likely, and others of my colleagues will not. But we will have written into law the right kind of public policy to protect the citizens' resource, his or her tax money. So the ultimate question is, Does this portion of the title as it relates to nuclear energy fit for the future? Is it the way we get this industry started again, obviously dealing with the provision in the law that creates a liability shield as it relates to Price Anderson, as a new design concept that we think is the right design, the safer design, the cleaner design, the more efficient design, and the reality of a future energy source? And have we created the right incentive to move us into the production of electricity from nuclear- fueled powerplants of the future? That is what this subtitle is all about. That is why it is important. I don't know that the detail of it has been written, or I should say read or understood specifically. It is very clear. It is very short. The requirements are particularly important. Let me read them: Subsection (b), Requirements: Approved criteria for financial assistance shall include the creditworthiness of the project-- that is, the responsibility of the Secretary and his or her team to make those determinations-- the extent to which financial assistance would encourage public-private partnerships and attract private sector investment, the likelihood that financial assistance would hasten commencement of the project, and any other criteria the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate. That is a totally open-ended clause that says the Secretary can, in fact, develop more findings if necessary to protect the safety and the security of this kind of loan guarantee. The Secretary, under the confidentiality provision, shall protect the confidentiality of any information that is certified by the project developer to be commercially sensitive. The full faith and credit of all financial assistance provided by the Secretary under this subtitle shall be a guaranteed obligation of the United States backed by its full faith and credit. That is fairly boilerplate language. What that says is very clear. If the Secretary makes that determination, that becomes a part of a decision that the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee in the Senate then deal with. This is not locking in the money. This is simply authorizing the ability of the Secretary in the future to move in a direction that the Congress can make a decision on. That is what this provision is all about. I believe, we believe, and that is why the Energy Committee in a bipartisan way brought this to the floor for the whole Senate's consideration, because we think it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to look forward, not just a year from now or 2 but 30 and 40 and 50 years from now and say that we have developed a public policy that will produce the kind of energy that a growing, expanding U.S. economy needs, that it is of high quality, and that it fuels our factories, lights our homes, cools our homes, and in the new age of technology it keeps the Internet humming, by then probably such a wireless communication system that it keeps, if you will, cyberspace vibrating. A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to visit China, a huge nation, a nation that is expanding by leaps and bounds, a nation that is pushing all sides of development and technology. My wife and I had the opportunity to stay in a beautiful hotel in Shanghai, a state-of- the-art hotel. In this city of Washington, DC, it would probably be called at least a four-star hotel, absolutely a marvelous facility. When we got to our room, the finest of facilities, there were all kinds of places to plug in your computer. It was wired for the state of the art. But it had a problem. The power kept going out. The lights kept blinking. The air-conditioning kept shutting off and turning on. The problem that beautiful, new, state-of-the-art hotel had that made it nearly impossible to plug your computer in and go online and, with your e-mail, talk to the United States is that China doesn't have a power grid. China doesn't have adequate electrical power. China has developed its electrical resources on a city-by-city, county-by-county basis. They are now striving ahead at a phenomenal cost to create a national power grid to tie themselves together because they know that to compete with us, to put their people to work, and to hopefully some day generate a lifestyle comparable to ours, and an economy comparable to ours, they have to have a power system that is reliable, stable, productive, and that is connected. No matter how beautiful the building, no matter how high-tech the facility, if it is not turned on, if it is not wired in, if it is not lit up, it doesn't work. Boy, have we learned that in this country. California has learned that in the last couple of years. If all goes well, I am going to be in the heart of the Silicon Valley on Saturday. I will tell you what the conversation is going to be about with some of the high-tech producers down there: Is the Energy bill going to pass? Are you going to get us back into the business of producing energy? We are large consumers of it and we need a high- quality, stable supply of energy that doesn't blink, shut off, or put our production at risk. If you are building chips in a high-tech factory today, known as a FAB, and the power blinks, you lose the whole production. You may lose millions of dollars in a blink of the power connection. So high-quality, stable power is extremely valuable, and if it is not priced right, if it is not competitive, and somewhere else in the world they can provide that high-quality power that is priced differently and in the competitive market, the great tragedy of our economy today in a world environment is that the chips will go elsewhere. That is one of many examples that can be used. That is why, finally, when President George W. Bush was elected and came to town, his first priority, among so many, was to assign the Vice President to assemble as many bright thinkers in the energy field as he could and to produce for us, the Congress, a challenge--a national energy policy and a list of criteria that we ought to develop in the form of public policy for this country. There were well over a hundred points in that proposal. Two-thirds of them have already been implemented by rule and regulation by the Secretary of Energy and other agencies of our Government to get this country back on line and producing energy. But about 30 percent of them, or 30-plus, are not. They have to be legislated. It requires new public policy to fully implement what our President envisions as a national priority, what America envisions as a national priority, and what I trust the Senate of the United States clearly understands to be a national priority. We tried mightily in the last year or so. The politics, for a variety of reasons, would not allow us to get there. There are factors not in this bill today that were in the bill of a year ago that are highly controversial. There are some changes in this bill. But it was crafted in the committee of authorization. It was voted on piece by piece. It does have a new bipartisan base of support, and we believe it is the kind of energy policy on which we can work out our differences with the House and put on the President's desk and two decades from now look back and say we did the right thing for our country, the right thing for young people today who will be in that labor force 10, 15 years from now, who will demand and require an abundant supply of high- quality energy that is environmentally sound and at a reasonable price for their homes, for their recreation, but, most importantly, for their work site, for the job they are going to seek. That is why this legislation is so important. We may differ and we are going to have more amendments to come, but I hope our leader and the minority leader recognize the high priority we have here and give us the time to debate this thoroughly and responsibly and deal with all of the amendments that are necessary to get us to that point where we can vote up or down and let the American people clearly understand that the Senate of the United States does support a national energy policy, and that the one we have, in the form of S. 14, is a quantum leap forward into America's future of an abundant energy and a robust economy. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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 Land and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 12, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 434--A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange all or part of certain parcels of National Forest System land in the State of Idaho and use the proceeds derived from the sale or exchange for National Forest System Resources; S. 435--A bill to provide for the conveyance by the Secretary of Agriculture of the Sandpoint Federal Building and adjacent land in Sandpoint, Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 490--A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Nevada, to the Secretary of the Interior, in trust for the Washoe Indian Tribe of Nevada and California; H.R. 762--To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Mineral Leasing Act and for other purposes; S. 1111--A bill to provide suitable grazing arrangements on National Forest System land to persons that hold a grazing permit adversely affected by the standards and guidelines contained in the Record of Decision of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment and pertaining to the Willow Flycatcher and the Yosemite Toad; H.R. 622--To provide for the exchange of certain lands in the Coconino and Tonto National Forests in Arizona, and for other purposes. (Contact: Frank Gladics 202-224-2878 or Dick Bouts 202-224-7545). 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 the staff as indicated above.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging to discuss senior health and fitness. May is Older Americans Month and I feel that it is especially appropriate to mention two events occurring this month that help highlight healthy aging. First, for the past 10 years, the last Wednesday in May has been designated as National Senior Health and Fitness Day. This year is no different and on Wednesday, May 28, 1,500 local organizations in every State of the Union, will again celebrate National Senior Health and Fitness Day, the Nation's largest annual health promotion event for older adults. Local organizations will host a variety of activities tailored to the needs and interests of their communities. Last year these activities included health walks, health screening, and a wide variety of other events. National Senior Health and Fitness Day is an excellent opportunity for seniors of all fitness levels to take part in locally organized health and fitness events. In my home State of Idaho, the Southwest Idaho Area Agency on Aging, the local YMCA, and a host of other organizations have teamed up to hold a walk in Boise. Idaho seniors will walk anywhere from 2 years, to 2 miles, depending on the participant's ability, a reminder that walking and being active are far more important than how far or how fast we travel. Second, the 2003 Summer National Senior Games, the Senior Olympics, opens Monday, May 26, in Hampton Roads, VA. An estimated 10,000 senior athletes will come together to compete in a wide variety of sporting events ranging from horseshoes and shuffleboard to track and field and the triathlon. It is one of the largest mutlisport athletic competitions in the world. I especially salute the 15 Idahoans who will be competing. The Senior Olympians are examples to all of us. The goals for Senior Day are to make exercise fun, to increase awareness of the benefits of a regular exercise program for older adults, and to encourage all older adults to take advantage of the many health and fitness programs offered in their communities. As chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I share these goals. It is important to highlight fitness and nutrition for seniors as a way of life. This is a concept that is very important to our ever-growing aging population. I salute all athletes participating in the National Senior Games and all those involved in the National Senior Health and Fitness program in their communities.

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, June 4, at 10 a.m. in Room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 391--The Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003; S. 1003--To clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the continued use of established commercial outfitter hunting camps on the Salmon River; H.R. 417--To revoke a Public Land Order with respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, California; S. 924--To authorize the exchange of lands between an Alaska Native Village Corporation and the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes; S. 714--a bill to provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of Bureau of Land Management land in Douglas County, Oregon, to the county to improve management of and recreational access to the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, and for other purposes. Contact: Frank Gladics 202-224-2878 or Dick Bouts 202-224-7545. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, 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 the staff as indicated above.