Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I make some brief comments on the amendment, I thank the assistant majority leader for allowing us to set aside what is an important but I think contentious amendment if we don't work out the tremendous complication of dealing with derivatives. It is a complex area and we well ought to know what we are doing. Members and staff of the Banking Committee are now working with Senator Feinstein on it. We are hopeful something can be worked out in this area. I am pleased both sides have agreed to the amendment that I will send to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the amendment authorizes a new program within the Department of Energy called Nuclear Power 2010. The new program was proposed in the administration's fiscal year 2003 budget. Senator Murkowski, Senator Landrieu, Senator Domenici, and Senator Thurmond are supporters of this effort. We think it is the appropriate direction to go in the development of a new energy package. The goal of Nuclear Power 2010 is to aggressively pursue activities that will result in the completion of designs for the next generation of nuclear reactors. This program will also look for ways to reduce the regulatory uncertainties which have been obstacles to the building of new nuclear plants. This program would incorporate cost sharing between government and industry to ensure that the outcome of this program will be not only beneficial but useful to both sides as new designs are developed. This program will also garner the tremendous creativity of the technical minds within the Department of Energy and our National Laboratories--some great minds that have been sitting somewhat idle in the area of new design and reactor development over the last number of years. In my home State of Idaho, for example, Argon West was the first ever nuclear effort that lit the first lightbulb. Strangely enough, a lot of folks don't know that about Idaho. But the reactor that generated that was an experimental breeder reactor. That was well over 50 years ago. Our National Laboratories have been extensively involved. This reinvolves them. We hope it reinvigorates them. I think all of us recognize that clean sources of abundant energy are critical for the future of this country. The cleanest is nuclear. The 2010 amendment is the kind of program that I think sends us in the direction that we want to see our energy base going as an integral part of energy's diverse mix in our country. We believe the 20 percent now made up of current operating reactors will have to go higher in future years as we look at issues of climate change, weather, and, of course, the unpredictable fluctuation in a variety of other energy sources. That is the purpose and the intent of the amendment. It has been accepted. I hope this amendment can be voice voted.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the Senator from Nevada chairs the appropriating subcommittee on this issue. It is an authorization. I certainly want him to understand it. I will step back. I would like to move it as quickly as possible. Monday or Tuesday of next week would be fine.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes outyear funding levels for the Department of Energy Fusion Energy Sciences Program. I appreciate Chairman Bingaman incorporating provisions of my bill on fusion science research in the Daschle-Bingaman substitute bill. However, the Daschle-Bingaman substitute did not incorporate outyear funding authorizations for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program. This technical amendment authorizes funding for fiscal years 2003 through 2006. While we grapple with short-term remedies to our energy problems, we need to stay focused on long-term investment in those areas which have the potential to help secure our energy future. I believe fusion energy has the potential. I appreciate the support of the chairman on this issue. It is our understanding we might be able to voice vote this.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I join my colleague from New Hampshire in thanking Senator Voinovich, Senator Inhofe, a good number of folks on our side of the aisle, and certainly a good number on the Democratic side of the aisle for crafting what I think is truly a bipartisan amendment to a necessary and important mix of our energy portfolio in this country. As you know, the Price-Anderson Act provides a substantial amount of the necessary insurance protection for the commercial sector to deal with nuclear energy in our country. The Price-Anderson Act removed the deterrent to private sector participation in nuclear activities when there was a substantial threat of liability. As we know, the historic management of our nuclear facilities on the private side, the commercial side of the equation has proven to be very successful and very safe throughout their operation. The kind of protection we have offered in no way has ever deterred or lessened the desire or the responsibility of good management. In fact, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not only ensured that by its constant and vigilant oversight--and certainly the private sector in operating these reactors for the benefit of the country has known that--but has demonstrated that very clearly. It is truly one of the great success stories of energy generation in our country that is not often told. Why? Because when we talk nuclear, there are automatic reactions and some risks are argued even though those risks have never effectively played out in an area of effective regulation, quality management of the kind we have seen historically within the nuclear industry of this country. Price-Anderson is an act that has been working well since its origination in 1957. We will need nuclear energy as we meet the growing energy needs of our country. My colleague from New Hampshire was just talking about clean energy and its importance. There is no cleaner energy than that which is produced by a nuclear reactor and electrical generator. That has clearly demonstrated itself historically. All I can say today is, thank goodness that 20 percent of our energy basket in this country is nuclear. I wish it were more. If it were more, I think we would have less concern today about the climate change issue and other issues such as greenhouse gases released into the environment. That is going to push us, as it should, toward ever- increasing higher levels of technology and the application of that technology to make cleaner fuels. While doing that, many of us in this body and the other body have recognized the value of advancing nuclear reactor design. Over the last several years, Senator Domenici from New Mexico, chairing the Appropriations Energy Subcommittee, and I have worked to increase budgets to allow for that kind of experimentation and development. The administration in its new budget has come forth with a proposal called 2010 to invest money in the new technologies of nuclear reactors, to get that technology to the marketplace and to the private sector and to allow an ever-increasing amount of our energy portfolio to become nuclear generated. As a result, reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act is absolutely critical because without it, and without that kind of protection, the reality of expanding that energy base simply would not happen. As we know, just in the last 3 weeks the President has proposed a new and dramatic direction for climate change in our country with the bringing together of science, the application of new computer models, and the idea of not picking winners and losers but allowing the great technology and the human mind in this country to lead the world to a cleaner environment. We cannot get there and have an abundance of energy that will drive this wonderful economy of ours and create the jobs that it can and has created without nuclear energy as a part of it. There is no technology today that builds at those levels of commercial power production without nuclear energy being a part of it and an increasing part of that overall energy basket. That is why we are here today. I think that is why we have arrived at a bipartisan approach to this issue. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who a decade ago were archcritics of nuclear energy are quietly saying today: We recognize that new technology in this area, new reactor design, has to come about if we are going to lead the world and have safer and more abundant forms of energy. That is why this overall energy bill is critical, with all of the new approaches that we bring, along with assuring current levels of hydrocarbon production and new levels of hydrocarbon production, and, at the same time, clearly technology and the application of that brings us to a cleaner environment that can be and must be abundant in energy. I do appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly on the reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act. It is an important part of any national energy policy for our country. I am confident it can pass because it has been brought before this body in a bipartisan effort. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me first and foremost associate myself with the words of the Senator from Louisiana. I think he has made such a very clear and profound case that with the technologies of today, with what we now know and what we have learned in the wetlands of Louisiana or Texas and on the northern edge of Alaska, without a doubt we can now explore and develop oil reserves with little to no environmental damage to the surrounding areas; that when those oil reserves have been finalized or produced out, we can close out and leave, and Mother Nature begins the healing process in a way that within a reasonable, if not short, period of time our presence there is hardly known. I guess I would be remiss today if I didn't say I have looked forward to this time in the Senate for a long while. I had hoped that years ago we could have debated and developed a national energy policy. I am quite confident that the chairman of the committee, who is here on the floor, feels the same way as the ranking member. The Energy Committee, on which I have served for 12 years, has literally held hundreds of hearings and maybe thousands of hours in the taking of testimony as to the character of the national energy supply of our country--where it comes from, what it means, how it is used--everything from current supplies of hydrocarbons to electrical production, coal-fired, hydro, nuclear, on the thermal side of the electrical production, and certainly oil production. We have done really, I believe, a phenomenally thorough job of looking at the overall perspective of energy for this country, both under Republican leadership and Democrat leadership. I think it would be fair to say that the staff of this committee and Members such as ourselves have developed a level of knowledge and expertise that is really substantial. I say that in this context: That we are capable and should have been allowed to let that committee work, under the chairmanship of Senator Bingaman, to craft an energy bill to bring to the floor. But because of the unique politics of today and the unique politics of the energy debate that was denied, on October 9 the majority leader of the Senate communicated to the chairman of the Energy Committee, who is now here in the Chamber, that that committee was not to send forth an energy bill. We can all speculate as to that conversation, but I think it has been relatively open as to what was said. Certainly the Senator from New Mexico was quoted roundly in the newspapers. I will not in any way attempt to interpret what he said or what he meant. But I know the Senator well enough to know that prior to October 9, prior to the August recess of last year, after we came back in September, and after September 11, in the conversations I had with the Senator I believed he was sincere and that it was his intent to produce an energy bill. It has certainly been the intent of the ranking member, the Senator from Alaska, to do so, and to build a comprehensive bill that this Senate could look at, debate, and amend, but most importantly that would be assembled inside the expertise of that Energy Committee with both staff, Democrat and Republicans, and Members working on it, fine- tuning through the amendment process, and ultimately coming to do the floor for another bite of the energy apple, if you will, by other colleagues who are not on that committee. We now know that didn't happen. I must tell you I believe it is historic in the fact that it didn't happen. I have here in my hand the bill that was not written in committee and that was not written through the normal process--some 539 pages. As I came to the floor this morning to get a copy, I was told that portions of it were still being written or rewritten because somehow they had not quite gotten it right yet, or someone had made a change, or maybe it was believed if they made a little change they might pick up another vote or two in a given title of the bill. I don't know the reason. But I do know that on the day when we began a historic debate on national energy policy for this Nation, I had not had a chance to read the bill in detail and it was still being written. The 539-page bill we have before us S. 517. I am told it will have another 40 or 50 pages added. OK; 579 pages. The Democrat whip is on the floor. If he allows us to debate this for a couple or 3 weeks, we might get it read, understood, and possibly crafted now in the process which is legitimately a committee of the whole instead of a committee of the authorizing to deal with national energy policy. Am I angered by that? Well, I would like to be. I guess I am more frustrated that in a representative republic and a democratic form of government in which we craft expertise and talent in the committees of authorization, it is simply and politically wiped away. The stroke of the hand of the majority leader of the Senate says you shall not because you cannot do it the way I want it done politically. Before the August recess, if we had crafted a bill and worked on it and passed it out of the Energy Committee, it would have had ANWR in it. The votes were there. It would have been a bipartisan energy bill. The House acted before the August recess. They narrowed what we now call the footprint in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on which exploration can take place to meet the political and maybe the appropriate exploration needs for that area. They got their work done. We knew we could. I don't think anybody would dispute the fact that Democrats and Republicans were working to do so. The majority leader was phenomenally fearful that his political will could not be addressed. Others on the other side of the aisle I think were quite confident that they would have the political opportunity of a lifetime to filibuster a bill with ANWR in it and to strut their environmental stuff. But something happened after September 11. A debate that in the minds of many Americans on national energy policy was somewhat esoteric, a future and generational economic exercise, had all of a sudden been refocused. Our Nation was at war, we had been attacked, and the American people asked: Are we so dependent upon a very unstable area of the world that overnight those sheiks could turn down their valves and up would go energy prices? Oh, my goodness, what would this country do? It was no longer this esoteric and generational economic debate. It was a debate over national energy policy in relation to national security as a policy. Somehow they came together. As the World Trade Center fell, energy policy and national security policy got melded together in the minds of most Americans. For those who wanted to filibuster over here on the floor, I am quite sure they scurried over to the majority leader's office and said: Don't throw us in that political briar patch, because we have to honor our commitments, and we will somehow look anti-American if we stand up and deny the right to explore and develop an abundant energy supply for our country that may somehow make us less dependent upon the sheiks of the Middle East. I do not know if that conversation happened. But I will bet it did. As a result, on October 9 the lights went out in this Nation's Senate Energy Committee. No more were we to authorize a bill. The lights went on in the back office of Tom Daschle because he was being charged. He charged himself and the chairman of the committee to send forth a bill. We have that bill on the floor at this moment. I haven't read it because I haven't had it. It is still being written. I can't read it. We will work to read it as soon as it is available. I understand a new copy is under print. This is the first book I have ever known of 539 pages in its second print in popularity and nobody has read it. That is strange. The New York Times Best Sellers List ought to try that one: You go to second print before the first one is read. That is the reality of what we are faced with. We are here now on the floor of the Senate, I would trust, in good will, to bring forth a national energy policy for this country, if we can, in a way that we can take to a conference between the House and the Senate, and then place that bill on the President's desk for him to sign and for this country and its economy to mobilize around. One of first opportunities I had to engage with President George Bush was when he was President-elect George Bush, right after the issue in Florida had been solved. He was here on Capitol Hill to visit with all of us. We met in then-Majority Leader Trent Lott's office. He talked about his campaign promises: A promise to bring forth a comprehensive education bill for our country; a promise to reform and cut taxes to stimulate our economy and to affect all segments of it in a positive and beneficial way. He talked about national security and a variety of other issues. But he stopped midway through that conversation. He said: Do you know what is really important for our country right now? It is a national energy policy. The lights have gone out in California, we are buying oil from a very unstable region of the world, and gas prices are high. I believe a national energy policy is critical for this country. That was President George Bush speaking, and I paraphrase. He said: I am going to assign the Vice President that responsibility. We will assemble a governmental task force, and we will craft a policy and get it to the Hill as quickly as we can, and see if we can't work with you here in the Senate and in the House to develop an overall comprehensive policy. It was one of this President's priorities, and he acted accordingly. It should have been a priority in the Senate. It was a high priority in the House. But here, months later than it should be, after the authorizing committee had been turned away and its lights turned out, we are now debating a bill that was a priority for the President, that was our Nation's high priority, and a bill that many of us have not yet read or understand all of the nuances or policy proclamations within it. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. I hope that as we debate this issue, and as we amend it over the course of the next several weeks, we will deal with natural gas exploration and development on public lands across this country, and that we open up Federal lands to do that and put more of our own gas into the pipeline as we talk about bringing gas down from Alaska where it is currently being turned under, so that as we move toward other forms of electrical generation with gas turbines that meet the clean air standards of our country, we will have an abundance of natural gas to do that at reasonable prices. I hope this legislation will have that. If it does not, there will be amendments to assure that the pipeline infrastructure that is necessary to deliver that resource to the Nation will be there, be available, or the incentives to do so will be allowed. I hope that when we deal with infrastructure issues, we are able to talk about electrical transmission and RTOs and regional ways of transporting electrons from point A to point B, from New Mexico to Idaho, if that is the wish of the generator and the user. As the chairman knows, and as the ranking member knows, some months ago we had a transmission expert before us. I think his words were something like this: The electrical transmission lines of this country today are like a bunch of country roads that every so often meet. That was part of the problem in California when we, from Idaho, were helping supply California to keep its lights on. You just simply could not get energy there, or if you got it to California, then it plugged up along the way as it headed from north to south or south to north. So pipelines, transmission lines, infrastructure become an important part of all of that issue. For a good number of years I have worked on the issue of hydro relicensing. In the Pacific Northwest, we are very fortunate to have a dominant amount of our electrical generation by hydroelectric, or water, dams. We know much of that has to be relicensed over the next several decades, and that licensing process is broken or cumbersome or unpredictable and very costly. While we are trying to incorporate all of the concerns and issues of many different groups in retrofitting and modernizing 40- and 50-year- old structures, because the world around them and the wishes of that world have changed dramatically, it should not take 5 to 10 years and millions and millions of dollars and a reduction of capacity or productivity of that unit to get it relicensed. We want to answer and adjust to the environmental concerns. At the same time, it ought to be our desire to make that unit more efficient, not less so, with new turbines and retrofits. Yet we struggle under that relicensing. I have worked very closely with the chairman. We are awfully close to getting something, but I am not going to add more problems to the current problem. If we cannot get there, and the answer is to make it more difficult or more complicated, I am simply going to step back and say what we have got is what we are going to have to have. If the country wants to keep on down this track of relicensing under phenomenally expensive and cumbersome processes, tragically enough, so be it. I hope, though, we can find a way out of this, to streamline it, improve it, make it more predictable, balanced, and hopefully, less costly. Nuclear energy is 20 percent of our current electrical production in this country. If we believe in climate change, if we believe there is an environmental problem out there and somehow the gases that are produced by the energy sources today are helping complicate or exacerbate that problem of climate change, then we ought to be for the cleanest source of energy possible to fill up that energy basket that is now in deficit and growing more empty. I believe one way of doing that is through nuclear energy and creating new prototype reactors that by public perception and reality are safer, more productive, less costly to build, and less costly to operate. We ought to be about doing that. I think we are going to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act that deals with the liability of the development and the operation of those facilities. That is something we ought to do. We ought to be encouraging all forms because my guess is a pretty safe one: That if we want an increasingly cleaner environment, probably over the next decade or two nuclear energy, as a percentage of the total supply, should not be 20 percent, it ought to be 25 or 30 percent. It most assuredly ought not drop below where it is. It ought to advance well beyond where it is. I think most realistic thinkers would recognize the importance of energy as it relates to nuclear and the cleanness of that form of generation. We ought to apply the greatest technology we have to that. I mentioned, in the context of nuclear energy, climate change. Senator Hagel and I have worked for the last 4 or 5 years on that. So has the Senator from New Mexico. So has the Senator from Alaska. Many have become involved in that debate. The two Senators from Oklahoma have been involved in it. Why? Because we do not want a hysterical policy that shuts the world down in panic. We want a policy that would allow us to grow and produce and prosper while making our world cleaner. The legislation the Senator from Nebraska and I have crafted, that now in part has been accepted by the President as some of his forward thinking national climate change policy, ought to be incorporated in this bill, ought to be a full part of it. We are working to get there. Frankly, it is possible to get there. In conclusion, I began to debate energy issues well over a decade ago. I have been involved on energy issues in the Senate for 12 years. I am embarrassed to say that during that period of time we have not built a comprehensive energy policy. I used to select different forms of energy and suggest that this one ought not go forward, but maybe this one should. I must say, I am no longer there, not at all. I believe we ought to be investing in all forms of energy and all forms of conservation. We ought to give the public a choice between green power or other power. Let them decide in the marketplace if that is the prudent selection for their use. Clearly we ought to have as much power as we can produce, recognizing that by definition, hydrocarbon use is on the decline. I do believe, most sincerely, my grandchildren will be driving electric cars. And they will be highly efficient and very capable of traveling long distances. I also know they will have to have a place to plug them in to put storage of electricity in the battery, or the hydrogen fuel cell that will be built within the car that will drive the electric motors that propel the car. That in itself is a hydrocarbon. The cycle is not yet complete because we have not used all of our resources to produce those kinds of energies. Yes, I voted for a lot of money in the last decade for new technology. I will vote for more. I will vote for tax credits and incentives for wind and ethanol and biomass because our energy basket ought to be full and running over instead of sitting here and nit-picking and playing the political game of a little of this but not this; we can't do this, but we ought to do this; not in my backyard but in somebody else's backyard. Shame on us for that attitude. It is the consumer, it is the taxpayer, it is the economy itself, it is the very jobs that drive the workforce of this country that are at stake. We ought not be so selective. We want an abundant energy supply, and we ought to be prudent in the development of the policy that drives it and produces it. What I am telling my colleagues is, I am prepared to vote for it all: Lots of conservation, LIHEAP, lots of new technology, the tax credits necessary to drive it, exploring ANWR in Alaska, exploring other public lands in our Nation. I don't want to go home and say that the Congress got bogged down in politics and failed, and your gas bill is going to double over the decade or triple or quadruple, and your energy costs are going to become an ever-increasing part of your household or business budget because politically we didn't get the job done. Shame on us if that is the case. Our job is to be responsible in producing a quality, energy policy for the Nation, not the political, environmental nit-picking that is going on at this moment. I hope the real job that is done here is to offer the amendments to craft a bill that will produce something that is phenomenally clean, abundant and allows our technology to lead the rest of the world into a clean energy environment that is abundant for all and inexpensive for everyone along with it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, events of the day may turn our attention overseas, but it is essential to remember those who are fighting an ongoing battle right here at home. This battle has been raging for generations and consists of fighting to protect this Nation's most valuable resource: our children. Youth are the future of the Nation; they need to be both valued and protected. Sadly, however, as my colleagues know, this precious resource is threatened daily. I come to the Senate floor today to talk about a tremendous initiative between the public and private sector that has been reaching out to youth for nearly twenty years. Project Safe Place is a program that was developed to assist our Nation's youth and families in crisis. This partnership creates a network of private businesses trained to refer youth in need to the local service providers who can help them. Those businesses display a Safe Place sign so that young people can easily recognize a ``safe place'' for them to go to receive help. In his State of the Union Address President Bush called for every American to commit at least two years or 4,000 hours to the service of neighbors and our Nation. The goal of National Safe Place Week is to recognize the thousands of individuals who work to make Project Safe Place a reality. From trained volunteers to seasoned professionals, these dedicated individuals are working together with the resources in their local communities and through their ties across the Nation, to serve young people. Because of Project Safe Place, this all happens under a well-known symbol of safety for in-crisis youth. Project Safe Place is a simple program to implement in any local community, and it works. Young people are more likely to seek help in locations that are familiar and non-threatening to them. By creating a network of Safe Places across the nation, all youth would have access to needed help, counseling, or a safe place to stay. However, while the program has already been established in 39 States, there are still too many communities that don't know about this valuable youth resource. If your State does not already have a Safe Place organization, please consider facilitating this worthwhile resource so that young people who are abused, neglected, or whose futures are jeopardized by physical or emotional trauma will have access to immediate help and safety in your community. To create more Project Safe Place sites in Idaho, the staff in three of my State offices have gone through the training to make them Safe Place sites, and now have the skills and ability to assist troubled youth. In the next five years, Project Safe Place hopes that every child in America will have the opportunity to connect with someone who can provide immediate help by easily recognizing the Safe Place sign. I look forward to the U.S. Senate passing this resolution and designating the week of March 17-23, 2002 as National Safe Place Week. This action will recognize the importance of Project Safe Place and send a message that we will keep working to protect our children. As we saw following the tragic events of September 11, volunteers truly do make a difference every day, and in passing this resolution, the Senate will be applauding the tireless efforts of the thousands of dedicated volunteers across the Nation for their many contributions to the youth of our Nation through Project Safe Place.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon President Bush outlined a new approach to climate change for this Nation, and I believe for the world. The President has thoughtfully tackled the emotionally charged issue of climate change and focused us in a pragmatic way. I believe this is a demonstration of leadership. He has thoroughly considered the existing scientific evidence, which remains inconclusive, and determined that a slow and cautious approach to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions is the most prudent policy. I and many of my colleagues in the Senate have worked hard for years on this challenging issue and wholeheartedly concur with the President's decision. The President's determination to aggressively pursue answers to many critical scientific questions and his concern about the effects of action on American jobs and our economy are well balanced. The proposed actions in the President's plan will be effective in giving us the change we need. The voluntary nature of these proposals provides needed flexibility to achieve substantial reductions in emissions. The President has outlined a strategy that incorporates incentives and opportunity for creative ways to achieve those reductions. The President's plan also thoughtfully addresses the critical need to actively engage developing countries. I have stated in the past that American policy should recognize the legitimate needs of our bilateral trading partners to use their resources and meet the needs of their people. For too long the climate policy debate has been fixated on assigning blame and inflicting pain. The President clearly recognizes that this is harmful and counterproductive. His plan will make our best technology available to developing countries and will refocus American research activities on developing country needs as well as our own. During this Congress and the last I, along with many of my colleagues, worked diligently to construct a framework for national consensus on this issue. The legislation that I and several of my colleagues introduced was organized around the central notion of ``risk management.'' The President's approach is fully consistent with that notion. It develops a ``long-term'' strategy; It quantifies risk by improving scientific research programs; It develops tools to improve energy efficiency and find ways to sequester carbon by funding a comprehensive R&D program; It removes disincentives by removing barriers to deployment of energy technology; and It encourages a global solution by aggressively pursuing international technology transfer programs. The benefits of the President's approach are broad-based, as they must always be. It employs a least-cost path to emissions goals by using energy technology and incentives; It yields real emissions reductions by improving the emission reduction registry currently monitored by the DOE; It strengthens the hands of U.S. negotiators by implementing significant domestic action; It is more than just CO2--it encourages reductions of emissions of methane and other more powerful greenhouse gases; It focuses on more than just the electric power sector by including the agriculture, forestry, transportation industries; It sends the right market signals by focusing on innovation, investment in new technology--not prescriptive regulation; and It maintains policy flexibility--our future policy response can respond to changing knowledge on technology, understanding of climate impacts and risk. President Bush, I believe, has offered us leadership, and I thank him for it, by setting for our Nation a safe, prudent, and responsible path toward resolving this issue. I hope all of my colleagues in the Senate, especially those who have shown great concern about climate change, join with me and seize the opportunity that our President has given us to move constructively, without rancor, to offer up the best technology, the best science, and to bring our country together--not to divide our country--and to continue to progressively achieve, in a recognizable and measurable way, reduction in greenhouse gases as we have done over the last decade, and to do so without damaging our economy. I believe that is what President Bush has laid before this Nation today, and the world: A pragmatic and realistic challenge of leadership as it relates to addressing the question of climate change in an understandable fashion and a manageable approach. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, later this month President Bush will be visiting the People's Republic of China. Clearly this is going to be an important visit. The issues the President will discuss with China's leaders are among the most important of our national agenda, including the following: The war on terrorism, where we need China's continued support and cooperation. The global economy and our bilateral economic relations with the PRC, a new member of the WTO. Security relations in Asia where both of our countries have important interests and long-standing and close ties to other regional powers. Among all these issues, though, one that will undoubtedly be raised by the PRC is Taiwan. It is a pretty safe bet that the PRC's leaders will try to use the President's visits to win some concessions on issues relating to Taiwan. They will probe for any signs that the United States is willing to compromise some of our interests in a strong U.S.-ROC relationship in exchange for real or promised strengthening of our ties with Beijing. I know the President will be ready for this gambit, and will be fully prepared and determined to turn back any such efforts by Beijing. The President has already made it clear how important our ties with Taiwan are to the United States, and he has made it equally clear that he will not compromise our interest in regard to Taiwan in any way. I am confident he also knows that as he pursues this strong, principled and sensible stand, he will have the full backing of the U.S. Senate. He will not stand for any Beijing attempts to undermine U.S.-ROC relations, and he knows the Senate of the United States won't, either. The fact is, the Republic of China is one of our best friends in the region. It is also one of the region's strongest economies and most vibrant democracies. We have extensive ties to Taiwan, which are both articulated and protected in the Taiwan Relations Act. We are not going to do anything to compromise those ties. I know I speak for all Senators when I express the wish that the President's visit to the PRC will be productive and advance our interests in Asia and the world, and when I express the confidence that U.S.-ROC relations will continue to be strong and to prosper, even as our relations with Beijing evolve.

Mr. CRAIG

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

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

Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of our service men and women who have served or who are serving during Operation Enduring Freedom. All who were involved in this operation have done an extraordinary job routing terrorism, defending our nation from further attacks, and making their fellow Americans proud of their efforts and accomplishments. Let me especially thank the brave men and women of Mountain Home Air Force Base (MHAFB). The 366th Wing of MHAFB deployed three of their flying squadrons during this recent and ongoing operation, which included the 389th Fighter Squadron of F-16Cs, the 391st Fighter Squadron of F-15Es, and the 34th Bomber Squadron of B-1Bs. During their time in and around Afghanistan the 389th flew daily sorties attacking Taliban vehicles, facilities, and cave complexes. The 391st added to toppling the Taliban and al Qaeda by dropping a majority of the 500 pound precision-guided munitions. And finally, the 34th were the lead bombers of the campaign and accounted for a majority of the Air Force's 14 million pounds of munitions in the first 95 days of the air campaign. Without these squadrons' support, justice might still have been served in Afghanistan, but it would not have been served forcefully, with authority, and with accurate and deadly precision. This was a tremendous accomplishment which demonstrated to potential evil-doers that aggression against the United States will provoke a response from Mountain Home Air Force Base and other United States entities. While the 389th, the 391st and the 34th received well-deserved attention, let us not forget the efforts of MHAFB here at home protecting the United States. In addition to its efforts abroad, MHAFB is playing a significant role in defending our nation as part of Operation Noble Eagle. Currently, the 726th Air Control Squadron is protecting our interior air space twenty-four hours a day. And as I speak, the 726th is monitoring the air traffic over and around Salt Lake City ensuring the Olympics continue without interruption. Also helping support a safe Olympics is the 22nd Air Refueling Squadron of Mountain Home, which is flying air refueling missions for the combat air patrol fighters around Salt Lake. Once again, I want to thank all of our men and women in uniform for their efforts and I especially want to take this opportunity to salute MHAFB. As the motto of the 366th Wing says, ``Audentes Fortuna Juvat,'' Fortune Favors the Bold. I am proud that Idaho is the home of the bold men and women of Mountain Home AFB, and I wish them good fortune in all their future endeavors.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Parliamentary inquiry: The author of the amendment has just modified his amendment. Is it my understanding the Crapo amendment to strike still pertains to the modified amendment or is it to the original? What will be the circumstance of this vote?

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Chair please tell me when 5 minutes remains on our side?

Mr. CRAIG. So the amendment to strike covers all action including the substitute language the Senator from Nevada has just offered?

Mr. CRAIG. They say the definition of control is in the eye of the beholder and ultimately in the eye of the court, and that is where I believe this relationship will go if it is a mandate of Federal law. We must know where we are going. Is it only an updating of the Packers and Stockyards Act? I think not. I think it is an entirely different relationship of which we need to be clearly aware. When we are talking competitiveness, I want ranchers of Idaho to be as competitive as possible. What I am frustrated about, and the Purdue University study says it, what about the fringe area where there is only one packinghouse? If this goes through, are we assuming packers are going to go out and build new plants around the West? The West is a fringe area. We have heard from my colleagues from Idaho. Idaho and Wyoming fit that definition. Our livestock must move elsewhere, or at least to the edge of our borders, to be processed and ultimately to be marketed. That is why capacity, throughput, all of those kinds of things, through contract relationships and owner relationships, has built stability within that market--and competition, and I hope pricing. If I am wrong, the study will prove it. This is the first time we have directed USDA to look straight at this issue, not around the issue, not about market manipulation but the reality of the current market and changing those relationships, and the impact those changes would have on the profitability of the livestock industry, primarily the beef and the pork industry. The poultry industry is already fully integrated, and we compete, if one is a beef producer or a pork producer, directly with that industry. Therefore, efficiencies must be such to create the profitabilities for a kind of effective competition. That is the reality of the issue we face. I hope my colleagues vote down the Grassley amendment and recognize that my amendment is not ad infinitum. It is 270 days directed specifically at USDA, with specifics for that study, and then we come back to Congress and the next year the Senators from Idaho, Wyoming, and South Dakota can stand in this Chamber and say here are the facts; here is what we know we are doing; here is a designer amendment to fit the reality of the marketplace, instead of what we believe might be true based on what we think exists today. I do not want to collapse the livestock industry built on maybes and mights and possibilities. That is the value of the study. I move to table the second-degree amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I understand the time on the Grassley second degree was 40 minutes, 20 to each side equally divided.