Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to speak in behalf of an amendment laid down by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, as it relates to a particularly growing concerning that we have about a provision within the North American Free Trade Agreement. Because we are now on the floor of the Senate with trade issues that are so important to our country, we thought this the appropriate place to offer this amendment. Representing a State such as Idaho, I know the words ``made in Idaho'' or ``buy Idaho'' have become a rather important but familiar refrain across my State for the last good number of years. What is unique about that is it has now become a refrain around the world, as products built in my State, as in other States, are now trafficking in world commerce and are a growing part of the Idaho economy. Whether it is the potato chip, for which we are well known, or the computer chip, with which we now dominate world markets because of quality and efficiency, Idaho's trade has grown phenomenally in the last decade, increasing and improving and diversifying our economy, and at the same time supplying increasing numbers of jobs that are important to all Idahoans. So whether it is trade adjustment or whether it is trade promotion authority, all of those become important items that we clearly need to debate. I, like the ranking member of the Finance Committee, am extremely frustrated by the process and the character of the process that has been given to us by the majority leader. We cannot look at these different trade issues separately and in a clean fashion and debate them in a way that allows us to focus individually on these issues from the importance of displaced worker health care, of course, to the importance of our President having the authority to negotiate trade agreements. All of that said, what is most important in any trade agreement is the transparency of the process so all of us can understand what our negotiators are doing and why they are doing it and the advantages those negotiations will bring to us as citizens, as workers, as producers within this economy. The Dorgan amendment does just that for an agreement that is already in place, the North American Free Trade Agreement--that I happened to oppose when it came to the floor some years ago. I had been a supporter of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement originally. But as the Bush administration and then the Clinton administration put the final touches to the North American Free Trade Agreement, there clearly were provisions within it that I thought would not only be troublesome to enforce but this country more likely would not enforce, and the Canadian Government, on the other side of the border, would enforce, making it most difficult for commerce to flow evenly in both directions, which would create disadvantages for our producers and for our consumers, while creating advantages for the producers of Canada. Guess what. I was right in many instances. Many of my farmers and ranchers in Idaho today do not agree that the Canadian Free Trade Agreement was, in fact, a positive move for our country. This administration, though, has shown its willingness to enforce trade remedy law. With the steel agreement of a few months ago, and now a soft wood Canadian timber agreement just penned by the Department of Commerce, and being heard by the International Trade Commission as we speak today, we see the willingness on the part of this President to use law, current law, in a way that will not only force but stabilize markets and create level playing fields for producers and create a fair trade environment that some of my producers do not think exists. While trade is so important to my State, tragically enough some of my producers and workers are beginning to believe that free trade means that it all comes here and is sold in America, displacing our workers and changing our economy because we have had administrations in the past that were not willing to enforce trade remedy situations and level the playing field and create fair and equitable environments. I know the positive nature of trade and the importance of it. At the same time, chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement does something that is increasingly important as it relates to what are called Investor Protection Tribunals. That means when one government takes an action that may cause a dislocation of a product within the commerce of another country under the North American Free Trade Agreement, there is a procedure, a process by which it can be determined whether that was a fair and equitable process. The tragedy of that is the tribunals have been closed and the public has not been allowed to see them. I must tell you, this administration recognizes it, understands its problems. It is important we try to deal with those as rapidly as we can. Last July, our U.S. Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, together with his Canadian and Mexican trade counterparts, discussed the secretive nature of these unique dispute tribunals. They recognized that these tribunals needed to be more open and they announced they would take steps to open up the deliberations of the tribunals. On July 31, they issued an interpretation of chapter 11 stating that tribunals should operate as transparently as possible. That very wording, tragically enough, gave those who operate the tribunals an opportunity to operate in a less than transparent environment. As a result of that, Senator Dorgan and I have brought this amendment to the floor--I am a cosponsor of it--simply saying that this is a requirement, that the President needs to move in this direction, to certify that these tribunals are open, and to respond as quickly as possible in a time certain. We believe that is critically important. If we are going to get the American producer, the American worker, and the American consumer to understand the international character of our commerce and the international character of our economy, they also have to know that on the government side of the process--and there is a government side to trade when you move across international borders and when you move across political jurisdictions--that the government's side of it will be aggressive, balanced, fair, and that the proceedings of that government be transparent so that the public can understand why a certain action is taken and why a certain remedy is produced. We think that is all very critical and very necessary. I suggest that the Dorgan amendment is in fact a perfecting amendment to the North American Free Trade Agreement. We believe it was the intent originally that these dispute tribunals be allowed to be open, and appropriately so. Yet it has not occurred. All of them have been secretive in the past. We had a tribunal against MTBE because of the action of the State that dramatically impacted the producing company in Canada. At the same time, it was the right of the State of California to do what they did. Regulatory activity that changes a market environment needs to be understood, and the transparency of those tribunals simply allows that to happen. That is, in my opinion, the importance of the Dorgan amendment. The Washington Times has recognized this problem, as have other publications, as it relates to, again, the kind of transparency that we think is important. In the character of the tribunal, Bill Moyers--I don't always agree with him and what he says on PBS, but I think in this instance we agree--talked about the balance and the importance. Other publications have recognized that this is a growing problem within the North American free trade environment--that what we do is not as open and transparent as it ought to be. It is my understanding that we are going to have an opportunity to vote on this issue sometime in the immediate future. I hope my colleagues, recognizing that this is a perfecting amendment which directs the President to move in a positive direction to certify the openness and the transparency of these actions within the North American Free Trade Agreement and within the tribunals of jurisdiction, will do so under what we call the chapter 11 tribunal. With those comments, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution honoring May as Older Americans' Month. I am here today to celebrate May as Older Americans' Month. For thirty nine years May has been the official month during which we pay tribute to the contributions of our forty four million older Americans. It is during this month that we as a Nation recognize older Americans for their service, hard work and sacrifice that helped assure us the freedom and security we now enjoy. Not only should we take this time to show our appreciation and respect for America's seniors, but also to acknowledge that today's and tomorrow's seniors will continue making significant contributions to our communities through their wisdom and experience; in the workplace, in civic leadership and in our homes. We must also recognize that 77 million baby boomers will soon be retiring and must begin to address some of the challenges this influx will bring. Social Security and Medicare modernization, including the option for prescription drugs, must be addressed before this generation retires. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I look forward to the opportunities and challenges that await us as we continue our commitment to the goal of ensuring that senior citizens enjoy active, productive and healthy lives, and do so independently, safely and with dignity. In the tradition of Older Americans' Month, I am submitting a resolution in the Senate calling on the people of the United States to observe the month of May 2002 as ``Older Americans Month'' and to encourage all Americans to promote awareness through ceremonies, programs, and other activities that promote acknowledgment, gratitude, and respect for American seniors. I ask all of you to celebrate with me Older Americans' Month this May.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Fine. That is what we believe can be done over on this side.

Mr. CRAIG. The unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding we do not need a vote on the Durbin amendment, that a voice vote would be adequate, if that is all right with the author of the amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I withdraw.

Mr. CRAIG. That is correct. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG. To have it listed, is that the unanimous consent request?

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today President Bush is recognizing the national Teacher of the Year, and I want to join him in recognizing teachers across America for the vital work they do. I come from a family of educators, so I have seen firsthand the impact teachers have on children. They do this because they care about each and every child they teach. These public servants deserve our gratitude and thanks. While I believe this can be said of all teachers, I would like to recognize one particular teacher today who embodies this sentiment. She is Jennifer Williams, of Nampa, ID, and she was chosen by my State as Teacher of the Year. One look at her career shows why she was chosen as the Teacher of the Year. She has dedicated 29 years of her life to teaching, and those 29 years have been full of innovation and a real love for education. Not only has she been busy in the classroom, she has also found time for activities which enrich the community and help kids outside of school. For example, she has co-chaired Boise's Art for Kids project and created a youth art program through which she and her students go to rural communities to help children with art lessons. While these activities are important, her classroom work is what truly sets her apart. She has received many awards for this work in the past, including being named Mountain Home School District's teacher of the year in 1991, as well as receiving the 1992 USWest Outstanding Teacher Award, the 2000 Governor's Award in the Arts, the 2001 Idaho Art Teacher of the Year, and the 2001 Unsung Heroes Award. Her students adore her and her peers respect her. This what every teacher strives for, and Nancy has earned this regard. As Marilyn Howard, the Idaho State Superintendent of Education, said, ``Mrs. Williams stands out as one of those individuals who is a teacher in everything she does, not just in the classroom working with students, but also in her workplace and in her community. Her passion and dedication show in her accomplishments.'' As you can see, Jennifer Williams is truly a treasure for her school, for Idaho, and indeed for the Nation in general. Teachers like Jennifer make education a rewarding experience for students and parents alike. I am proud that the State of Idaho chose her as its Teacher of the Year. She is a great example for the rest of the State and the Nation, and I hope this award gives her a platform so she can help other teachers to excel as she has.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, was the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico in the spirit of a second degree to the Nelson amendment?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we just took a very critical and, I believe, important vote in the Senate pertaining to the Nelson-Craig amendment, and now second-degreed by the Senator from Oregon. While I know the Senator from New Mexico and I have worked long and hard on the issue of hydro relicensing, I think the will of the Senate has spoken as it relates to moving this issue to the forefront and making a legislative determination on what the public policy ought to be as it relates to the relicensing of hydro facilities around this country. We have now for well over a decade and a half spent a great deal of time looking at the hydro relicensing process. Many of the licensees have spent millions and millions of dollars trying to shape it and determine it. Study after study--and here are about 7 of them, some 1,400 pages of studies over the last decade--have said there is a problem that can only be determined by a legislative fix. That is exactly what the Nelson-Craig amendment, now second-degreed by the Senator from Oregon, does. It maintains the amendment, and the second degree maintains the current standard in section 4(e). The Secretary of the Interior can determine whether an alternative condition offered by the licensee ensures the adequate protection and utilization of the ``Federal reservation.'' ``Federal reservation'' is a term of art in the Federal licensing of projects as it relates to protecting the resources, protecting the land. The reason this amendment is important is when we go to conference with this bill, the House has said something very different. The House said, in their version of the hydroelectric relicense reform, that they would change the standard in 4(e), requiring the Secretary of the Interior to ensure an alternative condition provides no less protection for the reservation than provided by the conditions deemed initially necessary by a midlevel staff person at the Interior. That is a higher threshold than is currently required under licensing. What is so important is that we take the right language to the conference to make sure if we advance or change the relicensing projects of hydro--and the Senator from Nebraska has spoken eloquently about the problems of Nebraska, the Senator from Oregon has talked about the multitude of projects to be relicensed over the next decade; we know that hydro is about 19 to 20 percent of the electrical base of this country--while we want to modernize these facilities, bring them into compliance under better environmental standards, what we cannot have is a multi-multimillion-dollar process that doesn't get us anywhere and, in the end, actually reduces the ability of these facilities to produce power. The Senator from Nebraska spoke of a process in his State that cost $40 million to relicense a hydro project. My guess is that the project, when it was initially built some 30 years prior, cost a fourth of that amount--$8 million, $10 million. And now just to relicense it, just to go through the legal hoops and hurdles and timelines involved it costs $40 million? That doesn't talk about the retrofits. That doesn't talk about new concrete poured or concrete taken away or fish ladders or rescheduling and reprogramming the flows of waters to accommodate fish and habitat downstream. None of that was spoken to--nor the loss of generating capacity. Just the process costs that amount of money. That is why these studies have shown, time and time again, this is a problem that has to get fixed legislatively. Yes, we have had working groups inside the departments of our Federal Government over the last number of years. When I first began to examine the hydro relicensing problem 5 years ago, to the Clinton administration's credit, they began to get all their agencies together to try to streamline the process. That is in the eye of the beholder, and they did work. But there was nothing in the law that required it. What we were hoping to do is to do that. What we have done instead as an alternative is provide, when the licensee comes up with an approach, and a stakeholder comes up with an different approach, that the licensee can say: We can arrive at the standards and meet the needs of the stakeholder for less money in a different approach, and the Secretary of the Interior, in this instance, can arbitrate that and make those determinations they can now not make. It ensures a balance and accountability to Federal resource agencies that I think is critically important. Isn't it fascinating that a third level bureaucrat can make a demand that even the Secretary cannot act on, that may cost millions and millions of dollars? It may even take down a hydro facility because it can no longer operate in an economically effective way and the licensee would simply walk away and the facility would come down and it would be no longer productive because someone downline in an agency determined they needed something that could not in any way be arbitrated, that could not in any way be accommodated by different approaches, or an alternative review. That is what we offer in the Nelson amendment. That is why it is critical. The Smith amendment, then, gives a little flexibility in time that we think is important. Trout Unlimited has said it is important. We are certainly willing to accommodate this. This in no way is an anti-environmental vote. The process itself is still intact. All of the players get to the table. All of the players' viewpoints are heard. We said, when the licensee comes forward and says I can meet those new standards for less money in a different way, that is a consideration which becomes part of the process that does not now exist. We think that is right. We think it is reasonable. That is the way government ought to work. If we lose our hydro base in this country--and we could--how do we replace it? Coal-fired plants? A new nuclear plant? It can never be made up by wind and solar because it can never produce that amount of power. It would have to be replaced. It is replaced, at least in volume, by the current alternatives I have mentioned. In most instances, and in most States, those alternatives today are somewhat unacceptable. That is why it is so critically important that the Nelson-Craig-Smith amendment move forward as a part of this energy bill and into the conference where we can work out our differences and hopefully resolve a problem that has plagued this process now since it was created nearly two decades ago. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, that vote was on the Nelson-Craig amendment in the second degree by the Senator from Oregon?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as I sit here and look around at my surroundings, there is a dominant feature, our Nation's Capitol. The Rotunda is a landmark that is recognized throughout our country. What is noticeably missing from this landscape is Idaho! Our Nation's Capitol is vastly different from Idaho. Each day, Congressmen come to work and see the historical landmarks of the Capitol. They do not see Idaho's vast mountains, rural countrysides, expansive farmland, or raging rivers, the landmarks we all feel in part define Idaho. Every day, I work to promote and advocate for our Western principles and our Western lifestyle. These Western principles are the touchstone for my service in Congress. And every day, my goal is to work to establish Federal policies that are responsive to the needs and interests of Idaho and the West, as well as to lead in developing natural resource and energy policies that protect Western water and ensure a clean, safe environment, consistent with sound science, community stability, economic growth and the principle of multiple use. I am a fiscal conservative who believes in the principles of multiple use, conservation, and management at the local level. I believe these fundamental ideas should guide all natural resource decisions. Natural resource management is about balancing the needs of the people with the needs of the land. I have never met someone who wants dirty air, undrinkable water, or devastated forests. We all want a livable environment. Where people differ is over how these goals will be accomplished. That being said, I have compiled all of my thoughts and feelings on Western issues to create what I call ``Our Western Agenda.'' ``Our Western Agenda'' is designed to provide suggestions on specific Idaho and Western issues. It proposes a compass for how our natural resource policy should address these issues. While the list of issues that touch the West is much longer than this, I believe the following ideas comprise the core. First, I believe access must be guaranteed to our public lands for multiple uses, including ranching, mining, and recreation. In order to maintain the values of public lands, I believe the most critical characteristic that needs to be preserved is access. Conservation and multiple use, for a century now the dominant policy of our public lands, require access. Only by accessing these areas can active management take place, providing protection for our public lands against disease, wildfire, and insect epidemics. Next, the long struggle over public access to our lands has left many with battle fatigue and I believe through collaborative conservation, mutual goals of various user groups can be accomplished. Clearly, we need a new approach to solving natural resource conflicts, user conflicts, and management conflicts. In order to resolve conflict, all the players need to come ``to the table'' to explore our shared ideals instead of reinforcing our disagreements. I think we should adopt the strategies of some local activists who have turned away from the existing national standoff. Instead, they are working to bridge differences, to find a common solution that reflects the national environmental ethic. In a phrase: collaborative conservation. I believe collaborative conservation should include the following. We must discard the doctrine of national communities of interest, where decision makers are selected from national organizations, and return to a doctrine of local community interest. We should not allow Federal bureaucracies and national organizations to upset the fragile process of local consensus making. We need a process of continuous improvement in reducing our impacts on the land. We must stipulate that for all the progress made by commodity-producing industries, loggers and ranchers, and recreationists, we can always do better. Federal Government policies desperately need modernization. The Government needs to manage better. It must not allow restrictive approaches based upon inflexible national mandates to trump what would otherwise be environmentally sound activities and shut out local people who have to live with the consequences of Federal decisions. As a community, we need to come together to solve the challenges of multiple-use in order to achieve conservation and balance on our public lands. I also believe as our Nation's energy policy continues to develop, we will continue to look to have access to our public lands to provide resources. During the past decade, we have heard a chorus of energy marketers and environmentalists sing the praises of natural gas as a cost- effective and environmentally sensitive energy source. The past administration hailed natural gas as the cleanest fuel for home heating and aggressively pushed utility companies to convert oil and coal-fired electric plants to gas. The irony is that all this aggressive promotion has not been backed by commensurate efforts to ensure supply. Indeed, the Clinton administration complicated our ability to retrieve adequate supplies of gas by locking up Federal land deposits of this valuable energy source, with an estimated 40 percent of potential gas resources in the United States on Federal lands that are either closed to exploration or covered by severe restrictions. Increases in Federal red tape and bureaucratic inefficiency raised consumer costs while denying consumers the choices they were promised. The fact of the matter is as the United States enters the 21st century, our Nation lacks a readily available and sufficient supply of natural gas to satisfy current demand, let alone the increasing demand that we expect in the immediate future. Consequently, natural gas prices are high and will likely rise in the future. This will not change until we reverse government policies that have foreclosed opportunities for choice of fuels. Furthermore, failure to encourage investment in the transmission of electricity has threatened the reliability of service throughout the country. The Department of Energy has estimated that we will need to construct over the next several years an additional 255,000 miles of distribution lines, at an estimated cost of $120 to $150 billion, to ensure that our electric system remains the most reliable in the world. The notion that our Nation can rely so heavily on natural gas, maintain severe restrictions on exploration and production, and still enjoy low prices is, as Secretary Abraham has stated, ``a dangerous assumption.'' Last, I believe a common sense approach will protect our public lands against catastrophic fires, weeds, and exclusive policies. Fire is a natural component of any ecosystem. It stimulates plant growth, maintains a plant understory, and creates diversity. All of these aspects are healthy characteristics of a thriving forest. However, when fire is suppressed and active forest management activities--thinning, prescribed burns, etc.--that mimic fire behavior are ignored, this is a prescription for disaster. The neglectful management practices of the past will continue to plague our public lands unless we pursue active management practices that result in a balanced ecosystem. In order to prevent devastating fires, the agencies need the resources and flexibility to make management decisions that maintain our public lands. Increased fuel loads create catastrophic fires, contribute to declining watersheds, increase sedimentation and decrease water quality, and lead to the demise of fisheries. This disastrous spiral must be stopped. Non-native weeds are a serious problem on both public and private lands across the Nation. They are particularly troublesome in the West, where much of our land is entrusted to the management of the Federal Government. Like a ``slow burning wildfire,'' noxious weeds take land out of production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their livelihoods, including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others. Forests and rangelands are dynamic systems that constantly change in response to both natural and man-made events. They are never static. Any scientist will tell you that a healthy forest or rangeland requires active management. Like your backyard garden, you can't just let it go and expect it to be productive and healthy. You have to actively manage the resource by doing everything from thinning trees, to spraying for weeds, to maintaining roads. Without access to our lands, it is impossible to manage our public lands properly. Without access, we will end up with unhealthy lands that are prime candidates for catastrophic wildfires and insect infestations of epic proportions. It is time to move our public lands management agencies away from a ``one-size-fits all'' management policy and back toward their original missions. As set forth in law, the missions are to achieve high-quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of all users. In all of this, I believe we still have an Old West, a rural society centered on the original commodity-producing industries and agriculture, and then there is a New West, centered on the vigorous quest for a quality of life that includes the enjoyment of the outdoors. What ties ``the old'' and ``the new'' together is an appreciation for the resources and the value that multiple uses contribute to our livelihoods and communities. Natural resource management is about bringing the Old West and the New West together to balance the needs of all the people with the needs of the land.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of roadless areas in our national forests and to discuss the manner in which the last administration developed their roadless area conservation rule. Recently, the OMB released a draft report on the costs and benefits of Federal regulations. In this report, the Clinton roadless rule is estimated at costing $164 million and saving only $219,000. I find these numbers outrageous and add this to the extensive list of reasons why this rule would hinder our rural economies. With this, I would like to again express my objections to the Clinton roadless rule and explain why I feel it is still a bad idea. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Energy and Natural Resource Committee I held a series of five hearings between November 1999 and March 2001 to examine the development and potential consequences of the Clinton administration's roadless area conservation rulemaking. Our hearing record details numerous questions about the process and data used to develop the roadless area conservation rule. While I will not recite the entire history of this controversy, I do want to highlight some of the key dates and events to help my colleagues better understand this issue. To begin, the issue of roadless has been around for more than 30 years. In 1972, the Forest Service began Roadless Area Review and Evaluation One, RARE I, to examine how much land should be set aside and recommended for potential Wilderness. A more comprehensive RARE II inventory was undertaken in 1982. That review examined a little more than 62 million acres. A variety of wilderness bills passed by Congress allocated 24 percent of the RARE II lands to Wilderness. The forest plans completed by the Forest Service between 1983 and 1998 recommended--10 percent of the 62 million acres for wilderness; 17 percent of the land for future wilderness study; 38 percent of the land for other multiple-uses that excludes timber harvesting; and 14 percent of the 62 million acres to be considered as potentially available for timber harvesting. It is important to know that from the time RARE I was completed, through 1998, that less than 1.1 million acres of the original 62 million RARE II acres were utilized for timber harvesting. Thus, less than 2 percent of the entire 62 million acres had been entered, or would be entered in the next 5 years, for timber harvesting. In 1998, after an Interior Appropriations vote on funding for Forest Service road construction, I invited then chief of the Forest Service Mike Dombeck to my office to discuss the roadless issue. I offered the chief my help in working to legislatively resolve this thorny issue. I was politely informed by Chief Dombeck that they would rather resolve the issue administratively. In May of 1999, then Vice President Al Gore, during a speech to the League of Conservation Voters stated that not only would he eliminate all road building, but he would prohibit all timber harvesting in roadless areas. In effect he announced the selection of the final alternative for the Clinton roadless area conservation rule before the draft rulemaking had even begun. On October 13, 1999, President Clinton, speaking at Reddish Knob, VA, directed the Forest Service to develop regulations to end road construction and to protect inventoried and un-inventoried roadless areas across the National Forest System. On October 19, 1999, the Forest Service published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement to propose protection of certain roadless areas. In June of 2000, Chief Dombeck, in a letter to his employees on the roadless issue, stated that ``Collaboration does not alleviate our responsibility to make decisions that we believe are in the best long- term interests of the land or the people who depend on and enjoy it.'' Mr. Dombeck made it very clear to me that Mr. Gore's desires would be carried out. In the 2000 State of the Union Address, nearly 11 months before the final roadless area conservation plan was published, President Clinton said that together, the Vice President and he had ``in the last three months alone helped preserve 40 million acres of roadless in the national forests.'' On November 13, 2000, the final EIS for the roadless rrea conservation plan was published. And on January 12, 2001 the final roadless area conservation rule was published in the Federal Register. This meant that over the Christmas holiday the agency read, absorbed and responded to more than 1.2 million public comments in a little less than 2 months. The Public Lands and Forest Subcommittee hearings that were held, made it clear to me that the decision on what to do about the roadless issue was sealed on October 13, 1999 when the President spoke at Reddish Knob and the rest of this effort was little more than window dressing. It was also no surprise to me when U.S. Federal District Court Judge Edward Lodge stayed the implementation of this rule in May of 2001. While Judge Lodge's stay has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the fact remains that no administration, not the Bush administration, not the Clinton administration, nor any future administration can ignore Judge Lodge's ruling. I know that many in the environmental community, proponents of the Roadless Rule, would like to convince us that the Bush administration is somehow skirting the law by refusing to fully implement the roadless area conservation rule. But, the simple fact is that Judge Lodge ENJOINED all aspects of the roadless area conservation rule. Some have decried the fact that the Bush administration chose not to contest Judge Lodge's decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They claim this action by the Bush administration is an attempt to rollback a much-needed environmental rule. I think we would be wrong to draw this conclusion. The fact is that every administration faced with defending agency decisions in court examines each case on its merit and then decides which course of action is best for the government. In April of 2001 the Washington Legal Foundation provided an analysis of the Clinton administration's failure to defend or appeal cases that went against its natural resource agencies during its 8 long years in office. They found ``13 occasions when the Clinton administration refused to defend resource management decisions of its predecessors, choosing to accept an injunction or remand from a U.S. District Court rather than defend those decisions in a U.S. court of appeals.'' [There are] ``at least 28 other occasions, when the Clinton administration refused to defend its own resource management decisions in a court of appeals after receiving an injunction or remand from a U.S. district court.'' In the past, many of the last-minute rules promulgated by a variety of departments and agencies have been pulled-back and reviewed. We must realize that this is normal and rational behavior when the White House changes hands. So when it came to the roadless area conservation rule, the Bush administration faced a rule that was rushed through the process, that impacted a tremendous amount of land and people, which had been, at least temporarily, struck down by the courts. I want to shift gears here and help my colleagues better understand what makes this issue so contentious. Beyond the obvious questions of whether or not the process used to develop this rule was honest and fair, we have to remember that every rule and regulation any administration undertakes impacts individuals in some local community in our great country. As we have taken the time to learn more about how the Clinton roadless conservation rule was developed, it has become increasingly clear to me how rushed the process was and how completely the Forest Service failed to include a level of detail needed by local people to assess how the policy might affect them on an individual basis. While one might be tempted to think the Forest Service was knowingly hiding the details of its proposal, I think we all must understand the enormity of the task they undertook. They had a policy that covered over 60 million acres of our Nation. The last time they attempted a similar policy, in RARE II, the environmentalists successfully sued and the courts found that the policy failed to examine the proposal at the local level and sent the Forest Service back to the drawing board. Last summer, my staff took time to better understand why people are so upset over the roadless area conservation rule. We found nearly 43,500 acres of State lands within the RARE II roadless areas and more than 421,500 acres of privately owned lands within these areas. This is important because, like any neighborhood, how your neighbor manages his or her lands greatly impacts how and when you can manage your land. If implemented, the roadless area conservation rule would convey a wilderness like management regime on these lands. Think about States that have one or more roadless areas that the Federal Government is managing as a quasi-wilderness. Imagine for a moment that the State has a constitution that directs State lands be managed to produce revenue to pay for the operation and building of the schools in that State. Such as my home, the State of Idaho happens to have. Don't you think that the State will, in the face of this new roadless area conservation rule, experience a new public expectation that they will manage the State lands in a manner similar to the surrounding Forest Service roadless area. Let me take this scenario just one more step. Imagine that when Sally and Joe come to Idaho to visit the Panhandle National Forest to hike in the wilderness and roadless areas on that forest. They have absolutely no idea, nor do they care, that the State of Idaho has State lands in the Panhandle National Forest that are surrounded by Roadless lands. They have no idea, nor do they care, that the State of Idaho by law must manage those lands to generate a revenue stream to support its educational system. They arrive in the area knowing they are going into a roadless area where no timber harvesting, or mining, or any other activities are allowed, and they stumble upon a timber harvesting operation on State lands. Most likely they don't even take the time to find out who's land they are looking at. And why should they, they came to the Panhandle National Forest to hike in the wilderness. If they are like most Americans they don't know that national forests have a different set of rules than National Parks. Then we are off to the races. They go home to New Jersey or California knowing in their hearts that the U.S. Forest Service is carrying out a secret timber sale program to circumvent the hard fought roadless area conservation rule that they have read so much about in their monthly Sierra Club magazine. They then mount a campaign to end all commodity management on any lands within the bounds of roadless areas, no matter who owns those lands and no matter what the legitimate goals of that State or private landowner might be. If a local government were going to change the zoning around your home and failed to notify you of the change or what it might mean, I imagine you would be skeptical about the process used to develop the zoning rule. This is no different. The Forest Service developed this rule in a very compressed time frame, with little or no description of the potential impacts of the rule at the local level. As a result a number of local communities and States became so upset that they have gone to court to get this rule overturned. To date there are at least nine cases that have been brought to challenge the Clinton administration's roadless area conservation rule. I want to finish up with a series of examples of the types of land and infrastructure we have found in some of the national forest roadless areas that we examined. Interestingly, we found little or no evidence in the Forest Service EIS to suggest that State, private, and other Federal landowners were notified by either national or local Forest Service officials that this policy could affect the National Forests that surround their lands. Our staff analysis found some very disturbing information. For instance, on the Boise National Forest we found five roadless areas with forest development roads within them. We also found a fire tower and an FAA radar site in a RARE II roadless area, and as a result road maintenance and reconstruction will no longer be allowed. On the Panhandle National Forest in Idaho, we found 13 roadless areas with National Forest System Roads within them, along with at least three mines, one Forest Service campground and one power line in one or more of the roadless areas. On the Superior National Forest in the State of Minnesota, we found three roadless areas with National Forest System roads in them, along with four public boat ramps, three Forest Service campgrounds, and one mine in the roadless areas. On the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests in northern Wisconsin we found 1,317 acres of private land and 2,886 acres of State lands within the RARE II roadless areas. On the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia we found 10 RARE II roadless areas that contain national forest system roads, along with a pipeline and parts of a railroad right-of-way within the roadless areas. One roadless area that we examined was made up of 75 percent private property. On the Dixie National Forest in the State of Utah we found 14 RARE II roadless areas with national forest system roads within them, as well as one reservoir and one water pipeline in a roadless area. On the Gila National Forest, in the State of New Mexico, 11 of the RARE II roadless areas on that forest have national forest system roads within them, as well as one that had a water pipeline within it. I will finish with the Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina, where we found five areas with one or more national forest system roads within them, and one roadless area with a Federal Aviation Agency, FAA, microwave tower site in it. The point of going through this litany is to help my Senate colleagues better understand why national policy, such as this, can be better developed at the local level, and to help put Judge Edward Lodge's decision, to stay the implementation of this wrongheaded rule, in a better context. We can, and will, continue to argue over the environmental policies of this country in this body. There is room in this debate for opposing views. But in the case of the environmentalist concerns on the Bush administrations new look at the roadless area conservation rule and their efforts to gain political support to ignore the courts on this issue, I would hope that none of us would want this, or any future administration to ignore decisions made by the Federal courts. In closing, I applaud the efforts undertaken by this administration to take a careful look at this wrongheaded rule. I hope they listen to Judge Lodge and any other court rulings that result from the other cases. I am happy to see that the new chief of the Forest Service is more sensitive to local communities and the private and State landowners who will be affected by this or any new roadless area policy.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term Care Insurance Partnership Act. In the early 1990's, with support from a grant by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, four States, California, Connecticut, Indiana and New York, initiated programs to create public-private long-term care partnerships to provide citizens with options for long-term care coverage without having to spend down to Medicaid eligibility. However, current law prohibits additional States from including asset protection in any public-private partnerships they may develop. Other States may set up the policies, but the beneficiaries receive no asset protection in the event they exhaust the long-term care insurance policies. They would be forced to spend down to Medicaid levels, thereby removing the key incentive behind the partnership program--asset protection. Under the partnership program, States authorize the sale of approved long-term care insurance policies that meet certain benefit requirements. Individuals who purchase approved policies, would receive a guarantee from the State that should their policy benefits be exhausted, the State would then cover the cost of their continuing care through Medicaid. The primary incentive for purchasing partnership policies is asset protection. In other words, the State Medicaid program would become a payer of last resort rather than providing first-dollar coverage, in effect becoming a long-term care ``stop-loss'' program. The benefits of the program are significant for both seniors and government: Individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for their own long-term care needs rather than relying on a State benefit. It avoids forcing middle-class individuals to spend down to Medicaid levels, but gives these same individuals the knowledge that the government will be there if they need it. This program has been successful in the goal of keeping people from needing to use Medicaid. Under this program in four States, there are nearly 66,000 policies in force and so far only 28 policyholders have exhausted their long-term care insurance benefits and accessed Medicaid assistance. At a cost averaging $50,000 per year for long-term care services, the savings for State Medicaid budgets can be significant. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Long-Term Care Insurance Partnership Act. In the early 1990's, with support from a grant by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, four States, California, Connecticut, Indiana and New York, initiated programs to create public-private long-term care partnerships to provide citizens with options for long-term care coverage without having to spend down to Medicaid eligibility. However, current law prohibits additional States from including asset protection in any public-private partnerships they may develop. Other States may set up the policies, but the beneficiaries receive no asset protection in the event they exhaust the long-term care insurance policies. They would be forced to spend down to Medicaid levels, thereby removing the key incentive behind the partnership program--asset protection. Under the partnership program, States authorize the sale of approved long-term care insurance policies that meet certain benefit requirements. Individuals who purchase approved policies, would receive a guarantee from the State that should their policy benefits be exhausted, the State would then cover the cost of their continuing care through Medicaid. The primary incentive for purchasing partnership policies is asset protection. In other words, the State Medicaid program would become a payer of last resort rather than providing first-dollar coverage, in effect becoming a long-term care ``stop-loss'' program. The benefits of the program are significant for both seniors and government: Individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for their own long-term care needs rather than relying on a State benefit. It avoids forcing middle-class individuals to spend down to Medicaid levels, but gives these same individuals the knowledge that the government will be there if they need it. This program has been successful in the goal of keeping people from needing to use Medicaid. Under this program in four States, there are nearly 66,000 policies in force and so far only 28 policyholders have exhausted their long-term care insurance benefits and accessed Medicaid assistance. At a cost averaging $50,000 per year for long-term care services, the savings for State Medicaid budgets can be significant. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, many of us who have come to this Chamber over the last 24 hours to speak on this most important issue have approached it from a variety of points of view, all of them with some degree of logic that points out a frustration, if not a legitimate concern, about the energy supply of our country. A few moments ago, the Senator from Michigan was speaking about ANWR, that it was only a moment in time that would pass quickly and that we ought to be much more interested in other sources of energy. While she was speaking, I was thinking of a trip I recently made to her State, to Dearborn, MI, to the laboratories of Ford Motor Company, and there, for a period of time, I had the opportunity to visit with their engineers and scientists and look at what clearly is some of the latest technology that the laboratories of Ford Motor Company are employing toward future transportation. One of those is a much touted, much talked about hydrogen fuel cell. Someday in the future, many of our cars might well be fueled by that fuel cell, generating the electricity that would drive the electric motors in the hubs of the wheels of that car. I drove that car. I had the privilege to take it out on the track at Dearborn and drive it around the track. It was an exciting experience, to think that this vehicle could be my future, my children's and my grandchildren's future, as a form of transportation. Very clean; a drop of water now and then emitting from the tailpipe of that car. So it is an exciting concept, to think we have invested, taxpayers have invested in future technologies that someday may be available to the consuming public as a form of transportation. Let me talk about the rest of the story, about which the engineers and the scientists huddled around the hydrogen fuel cell at Ford Motor Company talked. They talked about the tens of billions of dollars it would take to build the infrastructure to fuel the hydrogen fuel cell that would have to be spread across the country, comparable to the gas station on every corner of America today that fuels the gasoline- powered cars. Had we thought about that? Well, I had not thought about it to that extent, that it would take decades to build that kind of infrastructure so that driving a hydrogen fuel cell car would be as convenient as the gas-powered car we drive today. Certainly, whether it be Seattle, WA, or Boise, ID, I am not confident we would want to drive to one spot, one location only, to fuel our hydrogen car. I am sure we would want it at least as nearly convenient as fueling our gas-powered car of the day. That was one issue. The other issue is a very real problem in the minds of American drivers today as to the acceptability of hydrogen cars. It is a little thing called ``boom,'' a fear that it might blow up. It is a false fear. The hydrogen fuel cell car would not blow up because it is a very safe form of energy. But the reality and the public perception is there. A decade of information, hundreds of millions of dollars invested in experiments and public relations and education and experience is all going to be part of that equation. What happened the day I drove that $6 million prototype hydrogen- fueled cell car at Dearborn, MI, taught me something. It taught me we do not instantly do new things around here; we don't instantly have a new hydrogen-fueled cell car. Its day will come, and I do believe it might. It clearly is environmentally clean, and it would be important for our economy. Yes, the economy will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and invest billions of dollars to get us into new forms of transportation. However, they predicted at Ford Motor Company that we were literally decades away, if not double decades, from a hydrogen-fueled cell car. I say to the Senator from Michigan whose economy depends on the employment of the auto industry to make her State go, what do you do in the meantime, if you don't have the fuel to drive the engines of the cars that the workers in Dearborn, MI, produce today? That is part of what the Senator from the State of Michigan represents. I guess you let them be unemployed. If gas goes up to $3 or $4 a gallon, certainly the kind of vehicle, if not the quantity of vehicles that are produced in Michigan today and by the auto industry around the country, is going to dramatically change. Some would say that is perfectly fine, that is the way the marketplace ought to work, and, therefore, who cares? I think the Senator from Michigan cares. I know the Senator from Idaho cares because in Idaho, driving from Boise, ID, to Twin Falls, ID, is not around the corner. A few minutes down the road is 2\1/2\ hours. It is 250 miles. To go anywhere in my State means driving a couple hundred miles. My State is 600-plus-miles long. By the way, that is from here to Boston. And it is about 550 miles wide at the widest. My State is a mile-intensive State. People travel long distances. Transportation is critically important. Large, safe automobiles that consume a certain amount of energy are necessary and important. Important to my State, which is now becoming a manufacturing State and a processing State, are the products we produce which have to get to places like Chicago, to the Detroit, the New York, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul because we feed a world economy. If we cannot get the product we produce to that economy at a reasonably priced way, then either we go out of production or it gets produced closer to that marketplace. The point I am making and the point that has been made by many today is we are an energy-dependent economy; we are an energy-dependent society. We use a great deal of it. We are wealthy because of it. We are free because of it. We have great flexibility as a country because of it. We are powerful because of it. And we can help other freedom- loving people around the world because of our capacity to not only use energy but produce energy. Yet today we have heard many coming to the floor opining the fact that production was somehow bad in the name of the environment, in the name of the critter, in the name of the pretty little plant, in the name of life after, in the name of generational concerns, in the name of something. Someone has found a reason not to produce additional energy for this country. Yet their very presence on the floor, the very wealth that has created this country was, in part, a direct result of the abundance of reasonably priced, reliable energy. When I listen to some of my colleagues, a fundamental thought goes through my mind. Don't they get it? Don't they understand the jobs that are created in their State are based on a certain economic equation and that if you adjust that equation arbitrarily or you deny its right to be in place, you run the risk of destroying that job and dramatically changing the economy of the country? Don't they get it? What happens if we get $3-a-gallon gas in this country? What happens to the cost of doing business in this country? What happens to the thousands and thousands of people who no longer have a job because of that in this country? Don't they get it? Or is praying at the altar of a creature, a plant, a concept, an idea so much more important that somehow we stand back and deny the right of this country to produce the energy it needs reasonably, presently, and in an environmentally sound way? Don't they get it? Yeah, they get it. We all get it. My wife told me last night: Don't you get emotional over this issue; you really shouldn't; keep your cool. I am trying to, but it is very frustrating for me to suggest to my grandchildren that because of a public policy they are going to be denied certain rights, certain freedoms, certain flexibilities within their lifetime that I had within my lifetime because my forefathers recognized the importance of producing, recognized the importance of abundance, and recognized the importance of wealth generation for this country. That is the bottom line of the debate we are involved in tonight. It is the fundamental debate that has gone on for the last 4 weeks on the floor of the Senate about a national energy policy. The first opportunity I had to visit with President-elect George W. Bush, the first opportunity our assistant leader, who has just come to the Chamber, had a chance to visit with President-elect George W. Bush was in Trent Lott's office. The issue in Florida had just been solved. The President-elect was in town. He was beginning to put together his Cabinet. He came to the Hill to visit with us. I will never forget that. We were all so very proud and excited about his Presidency. He said: I campaigned on education. I campaigned on tax cuts. I campaigned on the general well-being and the economy of this country and that I would lead these issues before the Congress and before the American people. But let me tell you what is important now. What is important is a national energy policy for this country that gets us back into the business of producing energy. He said: The first thing I am going to do is ask Vice President-elect Dick Cheney to head up an energy task force. We will make recommendations to you in Congress, and we hope you will move a national energy policy as quickly as possible for the country. We all agreed it was a high priority for our Nation to get back in the business of producing energy. That was a priority of this President then. It is now. It is a priority of Republicans in the Senate. It is a priority of many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In establishing national energy priorities, I have changed over the years. I used to think that maybe this was the right way to go and this wasn't and you could do this but you couldn't do that. I don't agree with that anymore. The policy ought to create the incentives and the opportunities to drive all forms of energy. Conservation ought to be a part, and it is now a part of this legislation. New technologies clearly ought to be a part, and we ought to provide the kind of tax incentives that create the investment that brings the capital that drives new technologies. We have put several billion dollars into new technologies in the last several years: in photovoltaics and wind and the hydrogen fuel cell car that I talked about that I have had the opportunity to drive, all of that is moving forward. All of it is out there in somebody's future. But probably not in my lifetime, at least not all of it, and certainly not some of it. But we ought to be doing all of that. We ought to be utilizing our coal with new clean coal technology. It drives 60 percent of electrical generation today. My hydro dams in Idaho and in the Columbia and Snake River systems ought not be threatened. They ought to be retrofitted and managed in a way that they are fish friendly, but they ought to be allowed to produce megawatts--10 percent of the national base. What about nuclear? We have included nuclear in this bill, and we are enhancing it--we are reauthorizing Price-Anderson--another 20 percent of the base. If we believe in climate change and global warming, we are probably going to want nuclear to be a greater portion of that mix in time. So why on the floor of the Senate tonight are we picking and choosing and saying this but not this? Do we know better? No, we do not know better. But we do know that as we have grown increasingly energy dependent on someone else's production, we have lost our flexibility as a country, we have lost our ability to shape domestic and foreign policy, and in the end, we will lose a little bit of our freedom because our sovereignty, our ability as a country to make those kinds of decisions that drive our economy and shape our attitude and our relationships with our foreign neighbors is, in fact, freedom. ``Oh, it is a freedom argument tonight?'' You're darned right it is. Somebody is saying you don't need to produce the 15 or 20 billion barrels of oil in the ANWR, or the 7 or the 8 or the 10--we don't know how much is there, but we know there is a lot there. But if we did, one example about the freedom I am talking about, or the flexibility in foreign policy, if we did produce ANWR--bring it into the pipeline, make it available to our refineries, allow it to go to the pump for you and me to put in our gas tanks--we could turn to Saddam Hussein, who just turned his pumps off last Tuesday, and say: Keep them off. We don't need your oil anymore. We don't need to buy 720,000 barrels a day from you for $4.2 billion a year so you can use that money to pay Palestinian families to allow their kids to be human bombs. We don't need to let you do that anymore. Most importantly, we are not going to pay for it. Our policy today, or the absence of striving toward the form of relative energy independence is, in fact, allowing that policy. Shame on us. Bad policy. But, somehow, over the years, in this state of ambivalence toward production, toward self-sufficiency, we have wandered off toward Saddam Hussein. On any given day it can be anywhere from 55 to 60 percent dependency. ``My goodness, Alaska is just a drop in the bucket.'' Some say it will drop our dependency on foreign sources 14 percent for the next 20 years. I'll bet Colin Powell, in the last week, wished he had 14- percent greater capacity to bring off a peace settlement or a cease- fire between Palestine and Israel. That would have been a phenomenally larger advantage. ``Oh, it is only 14 percent.'' Since when did that not count? I think it counts. You cannot be cavalier about this issue. Now let's talk environment. I do not make little of the environment. I live in a beautiful State. We have very strict environmental standards in my State, and we adhere to them and we believe in them. But we also believe in production. In the 1970s, when we drilled the North Slope of Alaska under the most strict environmental conditions ever imposed on an oilfield, we did it and we did not hurt the environment. You have heard speeches in this Chamber today and yesterday about the abundance of the caribou herd and all the successes there. A cousin of mine was a foreman for Peter DeWitt. He helped build the pipeline. We were visiting the other night about the phenomenal technicalities involved in building that pipeline, but they got it done. It was the first time; it was never done before. But Congress said do it cleanly, do it sound environmentally, and they did and that pipeline is 55, 60 miles away from the field we are talking about now. We are not going to hurt the environment. The technologies of today, slant drilling and all of those new employments of technology within the energy field, weren't there in the 1970s, and we did it well then. We will do it better today. It is not a matter of hurting the environment; it is a matter of not doing anything. That is the debate here. Do it or do not do it. Take the environmental equation out of it. If you do not do it, why then are they arguing? Why would anyone take that point of view? I suggest because there are some esoteric attitudes, if you do that you slow down economic growth, you discourage this, and the world changes. It is kind of a cave and a candle syndrome: Find everybody a cave to live in and have candlelight for their reading. You will not have to have all these other goodies that we call the marketplace, and somehow the world is going to be a better place. I think not. I think we ought to talk about the differences and the tradeoffs. We ought to talk about the jobs. My colleagues from Alaska and those who have analyzed this matter would suggest anywhere from 250,000 to 700,000 jobs could be created. Since when did jobs become a dirty environmental idea? I think it is a clean idea. I think it puts food on the tables of a lot of folks. It allows them to buy houses and cars and a college education for their kids. That sounds like a clean idea to me, and somehow someone is suggesting that is a bad idea. The point here is simple. It ought not be that frustrating. None of us should struggle that mightily about it. It is producing energy for this economy, doing it in a wise and responsible way, doing it in an environmentally sound way, and, oh yes, doing it where it is. You have to go to the oil to get the oil. We know there is oil under the ANWR in Alaska. The work has already been done. The EIS is already in place. The seismograph estimates a substantial volume. It is the natural and responsible next step in the development of the oil reserves of the State of Alaska and for this country. We are going to choose to buy from outside the country, if we do not develop. We will continue to buy even if we do develop, but we will buy less. We will be a little more independent. We will create a lot of jobs. We will put $70 billion in the U.S. Treasury, and hundreds of billions of dollars will remain in the U.S. economy. To me, that just makes a heck of a lot of good sense. I hope the amendments to this energy bill dealing with ANWR that are on the floor are agreed to. I hope we can vote for them. I hope at least nobody will hide behind a procedural effort. It ought to be up or down, yes or no, are you for it or are you against it? If you are against it and you can justify it--and, obviously, those who speak against it can--then so be it. That is the way we shape public policy in the Senate: honestly, fairly, and hopefully aboveboard for all the American citizens of our great country to see. I believe we ought to explore ANWR. I believe we ought to develop it. I think this country needs it. I think we are better for it. We will be a stronger nation, we will be more independent, we will have greater flexibility, we will create more jobs, we will get greater opportunities for our kids and our grandkids, and our environment will remain clean and sound and the Porcupine caribou herd will flourish and the world will go on. But it will be different if we cannot do that. We will be less free, more dependent, with less flexibility. The job of Colin Powell and his colleagues will be even more difficult because we have less independence to engage our friends and our enemies in trying to create a safer world. That is part of the issue. That is part of the debate. My colleague from Oklahoma is in the Chamber ready to speak. It is an important issue. I hope all of us will take seriously the vote that we will be casting, I believe tomorrow, on cloture on this most important issue. In my opinion, it is a generational issue that comes before the Senate at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Cygnus, Inc. of Ponderay, ID on being recognized as one of Boeing's Top 25 Suppliers for the C-17. As we all know, the C-17 is one of our key aircraft. Since it was first put into service in 1993, the C-17 has proven its worthiness as an extremely flexible airlift aircraft vital to our national security. Lately, Congress has reaffirmed its commitment to the C-17 by authorizing the purchase of additional aircraft. This is the right thing to do and I applaud my colleagues. In this day and age, we need a rapid-deployment airlift aircraft that can reach remote areas. The C-17 delivers and we must continue to support the program. Not only is it important for our national defense, it is money well spent because of quality subcontractors like Cygnus. Cygnus has supplied top-notch parts for the C-17 since the first aircraft rolled off the assembly line. Today, Boeing and Cygnus celebrated the delivery of the parts for the 100th C-17 and Boeing will recognize Cygnus as one of the top 25 suppliers for the program. Cygnus is a real success story of Idaho. It started in 1998 and since then has grown to sixty-five employees, forty-five of which work on its C-17 program. What is truly remarkable is they have taken those 65 employees, who didn't have experience in the aerospace manufacturing field, and turned them into a stellar team supplying our Nation's military. Because they have chosen to locate in Ponderay, ID, they have helped to diversify the local economy from a natural resource dependent economy to one that has a diverse industrial base. Boeing is not the only one to recognize Cygnus' performance. In 2000, Region 10 of the Small Business Administration recognized Cygnus as the Subcontractor of the Year for their outstanding work on the U.S. Navy's F-18 E/F program. Since September 11, our country has recognized, more than ever, the sacrifice that our Nation's military gives to protect our freedoms. Today, I also want to recognize the effort that our civilian laborers put into the effort. Much like Rosie the Riveter assisted our troops in World War II, our civilian manufacturers of today, working with our military, will ensure the freedoms we all enjoy.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, on this April 15, Congress and the President have solid achievements to be proud of. But there is also much work that remains to be done on a tax code that is still too burdensome and complex. First the good news. We continue to see the many benefits of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. This year, hardworking Americans and their families have a little more freedom, and the Federal Government has a little less control over their lives. Most taxpayers saw the immediate results of this tax relief last summer, when rebate checks arrived in mailboxes across the country. These checks were the first installment in replacing the old 15-percent tax rate bracket with a new 10-percent bracket. Low-and-modest income families were given the highest priority, both in timing and in relation to their income tax burden. But help for families didn't stop there. The 2001 law has increased and expanded the child tax credit, increased the adoption tax credit to $10,000 per child, and provided relief from the marriage penalty, including the expansion and simplification of the earned income credit for working, low-income couples. Education benefits for families include deductions for college expenses, improvements to education savings accounts, student loan interest deductions, and the continued allowance of employer-provided educational assistance. There are also tax benefits for governmental bonds for public school construction. The phase-out of the death tax by 2010 is a major achievement in fairness for family-owned farms and small businesses. Individuals and families will be able to prepare for a more secure future because of increases to contribution limits on pensions and individual retirement accounts, fairer retirement provisions for women, and overall reductions in individual tax rates. The first major tax relief legislation in over twenty years has helped lighten the burden on taxpayers this year. President Bush and Congress came together last year for the good of the American taxpayer, in a bipartisan compromise that was only a good start. There is much more we can and need to accomplish. First, we need to make permanent the tax relief in last year's law. The House is poised to pass a bill to do just that. I call upon my Senate colleagues to follow suit. Because of the technicalities of budget law, last year's tax relief sunsets after 2010. That kind of sunset doesn't make sense for families, farms, and small businesses that need certainty and consistency for long-term planning. Second, Americans deserve more relief. Even after last year's tax relief bill, this still remains the most heavily taxed generation in American history. A typical family pays well over a third of its income in taxes at all levels. That is more than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined. Every year, the Tax Foundation computes Tax Freedom Day, the day on which American stop working to pay taxes to government at all levels and start keeping what they earn. This year, Tax Freedom Day comes on April 27, 2 days earlier than 2001 and 4 days earlier than 2000. This is progress, but it still means Americans work 117 days a year for the government, instead of for their families and their futures. Looked at another way, out of each 8-hour workday, Americans work more than two and one-half hours for the tax man. Third, Americans need and deserve a fairer, flatter, simpler Tax Code. In 2002, Americans will spend an estimated 5.8 billion hours and $194 billion to comply with the Internal Revenue Code, or about $700 for each man, woman, and child in America. More than half of taxpayers go to paid tax preparers, many out of the sheer fear of an intimidating Tax Code, because millions of those taxpayers file only the simplest forms. Combined, the Federal Tax Code and its regulations number 7 million words in more than 700 separate sections. This April 15, Americans are better off than last April 15, because they are keeping more of their own, hard-earned income. But we can and must do better. When Americans are not strapped down by excessive taxes and red tape, they work, save, spend, and invest according to their needs, and their dreams. This means more secure jobs, better wages, innovative products and services, and a stronger nation. Helping Americans meet their needs and realize their drams, with tax relief and reform, remains a major challenge before the Senate this year.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I object. Amendment No. 3114

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise after a great deal of consideration as to the amount of work that has been done on this energy bill by the chairman of the full committee and by a good number of interests. My colleague from Wyoming is on the floor. He spearheaded a group dealing specifically with title II, the electricity title, of this very large and important bill. He labored mightily over that. I was involved, and my staff was involved, in some of those discussions. But the reality became clear to me and others that the electrical title of this bill is such a very complicated, extended title-- attempting to rework and amend years and years of law and public policy that has built up, that has driven the capitalization of the largest electricity industry in the world and, frankly, one of the best--that without the kinds of detailed hearings that must come before a full committee of energy, we could not effectively and responsibly write this title in this Chamber. I have opined on many occasions here that this bill did not get the treatment of the committee, it did not get the treatment of the subcommittees, it did not get the treatment of the professional staff and all of those who are interested as stakeholders in dealing with this very critical title. As a result of that, after several weeks of consideration, I decided it was appropriate that we have a vote on the reality that we cannot get as far as we would want to get. So this amendment today strikes the electricity title and replaces it with consumer protection that is exactly the language currently in the bill, and the reliability provisions of that bill that did have full committee treatment, that has been voted on, on the floor of the Senate, and has been treated and accepted by the Senate as should these kinds of issues. A good many interest groups recognize the complexity of this problem. The House tried to deal with an electric title and couldn't--after months of consideration with the committee effort. It said: No, it is too complicated and we ought to step back from it. So their energy bill, passed in August, was silent on the issue of electricity. Whether or not we speak to it going into conference, if this bill ultimately gets to conference, there is a reality that we might not deal with it then. And there are provisions within this title that I strike to which many of us are strongly opposed. The electric title does need the full attention of the experts-- a clear, precise explanation of what the jurisdictional committee intends, and, my guess is, therefore could craft the appropriate language. I think the Senate owes the electric utility industry and the ratepayers nothing less than a full, open, and transparent process to get us there. We want to reform the electric industry. We need a national interstate transmission system. All of those are realities. We saw the problems in California when a State failed to deal with restructuring or deregulation in an appropriate fashion and created the disincentives that did not allow the investment in the marketplace. If we were to create those kinds of disincentives to send a multibillion-dollar industry scurrying trying to understand, but, most importantly, allowing the recentralization of authority and a Federal regulator, then my guess is we will have made a major mistake. I think that question is clearly on the table. Senator Murkowski, I, and others who work on that Energy Committee, and the chairman who is here in the Chamber--in discussing energy and electric restructuring over the last several years, and the phenomenal amount of hearings that were held on it before any language was attempted--laid down criteria we believed were important if we were going to do no harm to the ratepayer and do no harm to the billions of dollars of investments that are out there already in this industry. Those standards work: Deregulate where possible, streamline when deregulation is not possible, and respect the prerogatives of the States. I have added in the last several weeks of debate a fourth, an elementary principle: Know what we are doing when we legislate. And when we grant new authority, or change our delegation of authority to a regulatory agency, know the consequences. It is my guess at this time that you could not effectively do a side- by-side comparative of old law and new law in this title and begin to understand what its impact would be on the utilities of Georgia and their investments, their values, and their abilities to compete in a regional or a national market. That is what we ought to know. We know the importance of sustained, high-quality, reliable power to industry, to the consumer, and to the well-being of the economy of this country. Last month, we received a landmark Supreme Court decision on the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to order transmission restructuring which has significant implications on the remainder of Federal-State responsibility and authority for regulation of public utilities. The Supreme Court's opinion in New York v. FERC demands our thoughtful attention. What we have not done here, because we have not been allowed to do it, is take this Court decision, lay it before the committee, bring the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the Hill, and begin to engage them in questions as to what they might be willing to do and what they sense their new authority is under this Court decision. Was that the intent of the public policy of our country, or do we allow the judicial branch to legislate in a way that grants substantial new Federal authority? It is not clear at this time. I think it is very understandable to most of us who deal in this phenomenally complicated area that we do not comprehend the reach of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as was and is now extended by the Court's decision. How far can the Commission push its authority now that the Court has said it has it? Those are the kinds of questions we ought to ask of ourselves for our ratepayers and for the utility commissions of our respective States and that which was once the responsible authority that created reliability and the stability of the industry historically. There are several other important questions which have been gnawing at me, and I think probably several of us, since the Court issued its opinion. For example, should the Senate now examine the need for legislation to protect native load customers? There are many who say: Yes, we should because we have a responsibility to the initial intent of the law and what it has done for the strength of our States' systems. We need to understand. Is FERC going to aggressively start restructuring in what appears to be a real, lively, unbridled authority granted by the Court? We have not asked the question. FERC has not been before the committee. The committee hasn't functioned. Of course, that decision came just as we were engaging here on the floor, which I believe dramatically shifts the pendulum and the equation as it relates to this issue. We all know that FERC has pursued an aggressive restructuring program and to establish regional transmission authority--a vital, stand-alone transmission business, as the Commission called it in 1999. Before we enact new law, we need to act to take into account that reality. How does FERC, through the Supreme Court decision, affect RTO, the regional transmission authority? We have already heard their expression pre-Court decision. Now we need to understand their intent post-Court decision. Why would you, in an effort to restructure the electrical industry of this country, shift all of the power that once rested in many instances in the 50 States' commissions to a central Federal authority with phenomenal power over the ability of an industry to operate and to capitalize and, therefore, provide service to the consuming public? Not one word in the energy bill addresses the issue of the regional transmission organization. How can we enact an electric title without taking RTOs into account? That authority appears at this moment to be sweeping, and with substantial impact on the very title that is currently by amendment and by process here on the floor in this energy bill. Even if we choose to remain silent on this issue, our choice should be a conscious one clearly expressed and based on a complete record, and at a minimum after hearings in the committee with full jurisdiction. That is what we ought to be doing. That is what we are not doing. I say it is time we step back and stand down and pass the energy bill absent this--there is a lot of good stuff in it, and I hope there is more to come--and do as we ought to do before committee. In my March 14 floor statement, I discussed why provisions covering electricity mergers and market-based rates and a refund effective date give me concern. Are those important issues? You bet your life they are important. I would like to now address briefly a couple of the provisions that are also of great concern to me--the market transparency rule and civil penalties. Oh, my goodness, Larry. What are you talking about here? I am talking about new authority, new power, and real questions being asked that I believe this title moves. We ought to know about it. Market transparency rules: I find the title of this section a great misnomer. In a nutshell, I consider this section potentially anticompetitive as any piece of legislation we could pass. Yet we are talking about competitive markets. We may be creating a phenomenally anticompetitive incentive within the legislation. The provision says that as soon as practicable, competitors must release information about price and quality or quantity of sales in interstate commerce. As far back as 1921, in the American Column and Lumber case, the Supreme Court deemed their practice of contemporaneous release of individual prices and sale volumes by competitors a violation of antitrust law. That is the law. That is the ruling. That is the understanding; therefore, that is the practice. Have we changed it? It appears we have. Is that anticompetitive? It darn well may be. We ought to know it, and we ought to know how it impacts the capitalization of the economic base of this industry. Economists say this practice allows a cartel to enforce its rules. Some of my colleagues cry market manipulation at the first sign of price increases. Malefactors in the industry could not think up a better scheme of market manipulation than this one, at least that is my belief. This section allows the Commission to exempt commercially sensitive information. If we really mean that, we should ask the Commission to repeal the requirements of contemporaneous individual price and volume information. And if not, what do we mean by commercially sensitive? Are we simply going to allow that to be interpreted by the FERC? Some of their interpretations took them well beyond the law or the intent of public policy over the last several years. The Edwards Dam case: Never did we say in the law they had the right to take down a dam, but they chose to do it--or to at least establish the precedent to do so. I only cite that as an example because it does show the extreme power and authority of the FERC. The civil penalties section gives the Commission authority to impose penalties in electric cases beyond what it has now in hydro cases. Unlike refunds, civil penalties have no necessary relationship to economic damage. We need to rest assured that we give this kind of authority to agencies that exercise good judgment. Here, I fear, we have not. I recall the Commission's use of its civil penalty authority in the hydroelectric arena, and in particular a noteworthy case 10 years ago known as the Wolverine hydro. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia told of a case in which the Commission extracted a penalty of $2 million for a project that operated without a license for a few days a year. I will say that again: a penalty of $2 million for operating for a couple of days a year out of license. Is that reasonable? Is that right? It does not sound right, but they had that authority, and they did it. Worse, the DC Circuit never reached the issue of whether the $2 million constituted an excessive fine. The court held that the Commission overreached in the first place, so the concept of operating excessively in the area of civil penalties has never been judged. The law said that the Commission's civil penalties authority extended to violators of existing license conditions, not those operating without licenses. We do not need heavyhanded enforcement in the electricity area lest we scare off investment. Maybe the Commission has changed, but we need to inquire of the Commission's intent and its desire to use this provision in the law. The only way you get that done is for the chairman of the committee to convene a hearing, bring the Commission, and build the public record: What is your intent, Chairman of the FERC? How do you plan to use this title? And what do you think your parameters are in your authority? Is it sweeping? I would suggest that it is. And I would suggest that if that authority is real, as I have interpreted it, and as I think the courts have been silent to it, then do you scare off investment? I think there is a strong possibility you do. All these points collectively explain my grave reservations about moving toward the electrical title. The Senate's intent, usually expressed in jurisdictional committee reports, is missing. We do not have the Senate's intent, unless you can pick it up haphazardly and piece by piece through the Congressional Record. It is missing. And I fear this omission can only be adverse to many States, including my own, that will be affected by this very complex piece of legislation. FERC, most assuredly, interpreted these provisions in ways that would expand its authority. Few bureaucracies ever attempt to limit their authority. And FERC has shown very recently that it is loathe to limit its authority. My suggestion is, title II of this bill just hands to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission new authority, expanded authority. And without our effective interpretation and/or committee reports, and the expression of the intent of this Senate as it relates to the Supreme Court decision, we have set them free, in many instances, to do as they would judge is in the best interest. I need only to reference, as I did earlier, the Edwards Dam case. That is the one where we gave them no authority in the law to take down a dam, but they did. For almost 80 years, the Commission never saw fit to interpret part 1 of FPA as giving the authority to order a licensee of a hydro project to take down a dam at the end of its original license term, and for good reason. As I have already stated, there is no authority in the statute for the Commission to do that. Indeed, Congress addressed, in 1968, the very issue of FERC, with attempting to address, in 1999, in the Edwards case, what happens to dams at the end of the original license term. Congress amended part 1 of the Federal Power Act, added sections 14 and 15, to allow for the issuance of nonpower licenses in the event a licensee was no longer able to continue operating a power project. In addition, those sections required payment to the licensee for surrendering its right to operate the project. So it was a bit of a shock to me when the FERC ordered the main licensee in the Edwards Dam proceeding to stop operating its project and pay the huge cost associated with removing the dam. That is what they did. FERC was even shrewd enough to procedurally block an appeal to the Federal court. So they worked their will outside the law. And here we are giving them vast new authority, without defining, without prescribing, without sideboards, in any way, in my opinion, limiting them, at least in the backwash or the shadow of a court, saying: Regional transmission, FERC, have at it. How can we ignore these kinds of actions? We should not. And if we are responsible in writing this kind of detailed bill, we will not. But we have. That is why I am here. That is why the amendment is before us to strike these provisions and allow the chairman to convene the committee, deal with this separately, and deal with it responsibly. With that knowledge, how can Senators be comfortable with what is available and what may become law in this pending legislation? Does anyone here today seriously doubt that the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of FERC, in its quest to create a national grid, will not result in serious disagreements between FERC's desire to control restructuring of our electrical system and the individual desire of States to protect the important ratepayer policies within their borders? This is a major concern of mine. I am not sanguine about all that we have done and the way it has been drafted. That is why I believe that clearly all of us deserve the option, deserve the choice, to make the decision here with this amendment. Do you want it or do you believe that some of what I have said is valid enough that we ought to ask the authorizing committee, the committee of responsibility, and its professional staffs, to openly engage the FERC, and all of those other issues, to allow us to deal with this in an important way? There are ample reasons for us to deal with other issues, but let me give you a couple of those reasons. I have a list of the organizations that, on examination of my amendment, and over frustration with this title, have agreed that they believe it is important to support my amendment to strike: the American Public Power Association, Consumer Federation of America, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Electricity Consumers Resource Council, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Consumers for Fair Competition, National Electrical Contractors Association, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, Transmission Access Policy Study Group, AARP, Public Citizen, Consumers Union, Citizens for State Power, Conservatives for Balanced Electricity Reform, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Small Business Survival Committee. Those are ones that have just come to us in the last few weeks, as they had the opportunity to examine the title, what is in it, and the amendment. There is a good deal more to be said. I see colleagues in the Chamber who are opposed to the amendment. Let me wrap this up with a concluding statement. My colleague from Wyoming and I are very committed to building an energy policy that allows greater production. My colleague was asked if he would help the administration facilitate trying to bring about an electrical title on which we could agree. He has worked mightily to do so. In some areas, he has succeeded. But in the areas I spoke to, I believed these were areas that he could not go, nor could any of us, because we simply don't know the impact. It is important that we look at the big picture, as we are trying to define all of the players within that big picture, enter the Supreme Court, extending greater authority or at least clarifying to FERC what FERC thought it already had. Is it not right, most importantly, is it not responsible of us, as public policy crafters, to make sure that which we craft works? There are billions of dollars riding on this amendment and this bill and this title. The reality that if we do it right, when every consumer throws the light switch, the light will come on; when every consumer touches the on button on their computer, the computer will come on; that moms and dads working will know that their security systems are on and that their children are safe. The reason I mentioned those things was because when you do it wrong, as they did it in California, all of those things become questioned. When the lights go down or the lights go out, the economy of this country shudders. Let us not be so irresponsible as to craft a title without the effective vetting of it, without the responsible hearings, knowing where we are going, taking authority away from commissions at the State level and resting it in a central all-powerful Federal agency without clearly understanding its consequences. What my amendment does is causes us all to take a deep breath, step back, not rush to judgment, leave in the reliability, because we have done that. We have vetted it. We have been heard on it. The committee has operated. The Senate has passed it. Deal with the consumer protection. But on all of this that is so very critical to the long- term stability of the electrical industry and the electric system of our country that we have all created phenomenal reliability on, let us step back for a moment and take a look at what we are doing and make sure we are doing it right. I fear we are not; I fear that we lay a great deal of a very fine industry in jeopardy to central all-powerful authority. Bad mistake, wrong choice. I yield the floor.