Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the leader yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on behalf of our colleagues, is it possible at this time for the leader to give us some timeframe as it relates to the packaging and possible activity this evening and into tomorrow?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the leader.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from North Dakota for a very succinct presentation about the reality of why we have spent the last couple of weeks debating energy in the Senate. There is another reality check that I think most Americans fail to understand when it comes to why they are paying $3-plus at the pump, and that reality is that clearly demand in this country has outstripped supply by a significant amount. We have increasingly, since the 1950s, begun to have to go elsewhere than just in and around our country to meet the hydrocarbon or the crude oil needs of our refiners and, ultimately, the gasoline needs of our consumers. As that dependency has grown on foreign sources of energy, I would argue that America became increasingly less secure. Now, I am one who in the 1980s, and probably the early 1990s, thought it would be just production, production, and more production. I have changed. I have spent a lot of time looking at the energy equation of our country over the last couple of decades and said, no, you have to do a variety of different things. Production is important. Our President said we are hooked on hydrocarbons. We are ``gasaholics,'' if you will. We are and we will be for an extended period of time. We have been there a long while. We have a multi, multibillion dollar infrastructure that supplies that energy out to the suburban access points, and you don't change those overnight. You don't change the technology that ultimately gets you there, but you do change. And America must change. Some say you don't need anymore production, you can go to efficiency, you can go to new technology, and that alone will change the equation fast enough to save America's consumers and the economy. I disagree with that. I think we are going to go there. In fact, the Senate by a voice vote a few moments ago passed a new efficiency standard for automobiles that I support. I am a Senator who has never supported that in the 27 years I have been in the Senate. So while I may be asking the Presiding Officer from Florida to change a little bit as it relates to the resources that are offshore Florida because I now know the technologies can bring those resources out without damaging the environment, here is a Senator who has changed also because I do believe that when you get to a fleet that burns less fuel, you are going to get to an America that needs less hydrocarbons over time. That is why the Senator from North Dakota and I introduced legislation earlier this year that talked about conservation, and it talked about innovation, but it also talked about production and the reality of having to get more production out of our own resources instead of relying on one of the most unstable, riskiest areas of the world to gain that production. If the world were at total peace today and the world's oil supplies were managed by companies and not countries, my guess is crude would not be at $60-plus a barrel. It would be at $40-plus a barrel and the American consumer would probably be paying a dollar less at the pump. But that is not reality. Reality is reflected at the pump and therein lies one of our greatest problems. Earlier in the day, we had a great debate about a tax bill, to tax the oil companies by about $30 billion. Somehow that was going to change the equation; it was going to make the world a safer and better place. It was not going to change the price at the pump, not one dime. In fact it had the potential of taking it up. Here is the reason why. It did not change this equation. What is this equation? These are the known reserves of oil on the globe. Here are the big boys, as we think of them--the big companies. Here is Exxon and here is the British Petroleum and here is Texaco and over here is Marathon. You can hardly see them on the chart. They don't own the world's oil supply. They manage and own very little of it. Who owns it? Hugo Chavez, Venezuela--who would love to jerk this country around by its tail--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq. I have named some of the most unstable areas of the world. They own the oil today. We need it because we are dependent on it, because we have done very little about it. That is why the Senator from North Dakota and I said we have to go where the oil is in our country, and the oil is not onshore anymore. The oil is not onshore. It is offshore. We know it is, and we know there is a substantial supply of it. But we have allowed States to put on moratoria and establish a political environment that denies the Federal Government access to its own resources, so the taxpayers of Idaho are paying a higher price for gasoline, in part, because the State of California--the Senator from California is here, the State of Florida, and other States have said you can't drill off our shore. No. No. Even though in California, with the old leases, they are still drilling in the State waters--not drilling but producing--the ghost of Santa Barbara is long gone. There are some who still like to talk about it, but my guess is these young folks sitting around here tonight, who are our pages, don't even remember Santa Barbara or the oilspill that resulted from the catastrophe of a wellhead blowing off offshore years ago. The reason you don't is because it doesn't happen anymore. The technology of today, the safety of today, the regulations of today have changed the equation. The Senator from North Dakota talked about a compromise the Senator from Florida worked with us on this past year. This is lease sale 181, where there may be millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas. We don't know. There is a pretty good idea it is there and it can be produced and pushed into the current infrastructure and America, for a moment in time, will be a little bit more energy secure. What I am proposing and what many are talking about is what about this area? What about the rest of the eastern gulf? Ought we not be talking about that? Looking at it? Understanding what is there, if technology allows us to produce? Here is where America's oil is being produced today, in the Gulf of Mexico. We are finding more and more out there as the technologies improve and as we can get deeper into the waters. That is reality. There are those who will give a lot of different arguments about why you should not do it. But I will argue you can do it and that the oil is there and America ought to know about it and they ought to be asking why we are not going there but, instead, why are we increasingly dependent upon foreign nations for our source of oil? It is a reasonable question to ask. Right now, America has grown increasingly angry because of the price it is paying at the pump. People are not accustomed to using their disposable income for the price of energy as we know it today. That is not what we have done in an economy such as ours. But that is where we are today. Here is what happens when we rely on other countries to produce our energy for us. We are at war with terrorism today around the globe. This is the French oil tanker off the coast of Yemen in October 6 of 2002, when an al-Qaida suicide boat hit it and set it afire. Here is the vulnerability of all of our oil moving on water. I suggest the ecological problems resulting from this are greater than from any drilling that could occur offshore America today because we expose ourselves to a high risk by the shipment of oil on our ocean surfaces around the world. That is why I think it is important that we keep talking and allowing America to understand we are not without oil and not without oil reserves. The progressive and environmentally sound development of them over time will help us in this period of transition that will take several decades to move to flex-fueled cars--hydrogen cars, electric cars, all of the kinds of things we think America wants and that in public policy and incentivizing the marketplace we are moving America toward. It will not happen overnight. In that period of time, while it is happening, America remains extremely vulnerable. Our economy is at risk. There is no question about it. What I have said is this picture demonstrates something that ought to be repeated and repeated again: The weapon of mass ``disruption'' in this country is an al-Qaida suicide boat hitting the side of an oil tanker, time and time again. That is the weapon of mass disruption. The high risk involved, the driving up of the oil prices, the movement of gas by $2 or $3 a gallon in this economy creates havoc everywhere. Certainly, in my State of Idaho it creates tremendous problems. It is important that I and other Senators recognize that you do not conserve your way out of an energy crisis. You do not innovate your way out of an energy crisis. You do not produce your way out. You do all three. I am going to continue to work while I am in the Senate to encourage this Senate in public policy to do all three. I think it is in the best interests of America, our economy, and our national security that we do so. As an American today, I am not only frustrated, I am sometimes angered and embarrassed that we, through public policy, have allowed our country to become so dependent on other parts of the world. Great nations should not allow that to happen, but we have. Then we make excuses all around us why we can't produce. Petropolitics is a fascinating thing. America gets it. The consumer understands it, and the consumer will grow increasingly angry when they understand that public policy doesn't allow the marketplace to do what it can do best in an environmentally sound way, to provide our country with the kind of energy it needs. Again, as we debate this bill on the floor and finalize it, my guess is we will do a lot about conservation, we will do a lot about innovation, but we will do little to nothing about production. In the next 5 to 6 years, production is where it is. As we work on innovation, as we move technology from the laboratory to the street to commercial use, production still remains critically important. I call upon my colleagues to stand up and be counted in all three of these areas. It is important for our country. It is important for our economy. Without question, it is important for our national security. The rest of the world should not tell America what its foreign policy is or will be based on their willingness or lack thereof to produce the oil supply our economy needs. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I oftentimes laugh. It is either Iowa, or Ohio, or Idaho. The other side of that equation with the late Craig Thomas, I am Larry Craig, Craig Thomas. His wife is Susan, my wife is Suzanne. It was not at all unusual that sometimes we would get mixed up. People would come to my office looking for Craig Thomas, and would find out they needed to be on the other side of a mountain range and out across a rather wide expanse of land toward Casper, Wyoming, instead of Boise, Idaho. But I understand. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I will be brief. We are very close, I believe, toward the final passage of an energy bill that many of us have spent a good deal of time with. I want to thank a few folks who have spent a lot more time with this issue than I or than the principals on it. Cory McDaniel on my staff, legislative LA for energy, who has spent a great deal of time over the last good many months as we have fashioned the SAFE Act, as we have fashioned a clean portfolio standard versus a renewable portfolio standard, I thank Cory for that effort. I also thank Frank Macciarola, the minority staff director, and Bob Simon, the majority staff director. We worked closely with them as we have worked our way through this issue. Sam Fowler, counsel for the majority, and Judy Pensabene, minority counsel, have all been very helpful. I have worked closely with Senator Dorgan and his staff. Franz Wuerfmannsdobler and Nate Hill on his staff have been very helpful; also Colin Jones, a fellow from the National Lab in Idaho on my staff, and Darren Parker, a research assistant, have been extremely helpful. A couple of interns, J.C. Dunkelberger and Brian Riga, have been very helpful throughout all of this effort. I think those of us who have been in the Senate a long time know this work gets done certainly by us in some instances but by our staff in most instances. They spend a lot of time, they develop a level of expertise in working with us on some of these issues. I thank these men and woman for their assistance in a complicated process. I hope we can finish and produce a work product that will come back to us in a reasonable form that many of us can support. I am frustrated we are potentially moving a bill out of the Senate that does not have any production. It is all about the future and the outyears. I do not think America worries about the outyears when they go to a pump and pay $3 and 10 or 15 or 20 cents a gallon. They worry about tomorrow and next year and the next year. That is what I think all of us have voiced in this debate. Somehow it is not right anymore to drill holes in the ground and pull out oil and refine it. I do believe that still fits into the equation and will for several decades to come, as we move to flex fuel, as we move to hybrids, as we move to hydrogen, as we move to electricity, as we are, and as we will continue to, and we must. But in the meantime, it is a reality that this Nation has to continue to produce. As loudly as I and some on the other side have spoken about it, the Senate collectively does not want to seem to go there anymore. My guess is the American consumer, tragically enough, is going to pay the price. I hope that ultimately we do get some more production built into this legislation or other public policy as we move down the road because it is the reality of where we are. While we work our way away from it and take this great economy and start shifting it and moving it around to new economies in the field of energy, it takes a great deal of investment that the private sector will make, and it takes the kinds of incentives, and it takes a substantial amount of time that I do not think is as reflected in this policy as I would hope, and as I have hoped it would be. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will talk quickly in 2 minutes. I come to support the Bunning-Domenici amendment of coal to liquids. It is quite simple. I look at it in rather black-and-white terms. A vote for coal is a vote against Saudi Arabia. A vote for coal to liquids is a vote against Hugo Chavez. A vote of coal to liquids is a vote against Nigeria and for our own production. The Senator from Colorado talks about America always laying the claim that we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, except we are rapidly deciding we are not going to use it for anything. Now, if we are going to use it, and it is the great energy supply, then we have to make it cleaner, and that is clearly the technology at hand. One of the ways to do so, and not only to use it for transportation fuels, is to run it through the liquefication process. And who is the expert in the field of testing it? The Idaho National Laboratory, working with Baard Energy, looked at the Ohio projects--46 percent cleaner. If you add biomass to it, 30 percent biomass to sequester the carbon dioxide and the combined cycle cogeneration process, that is what you get. Now, isn't that a technology worth passing on to China, which is the largest emitter, or soon will be, producing more emission with less economy of CO2 than the United States? I think it is time we pushed all technologies, and if they are cleaner, they are better. The argument here is they have to be perfect before we do them. I would suggest that perfect may not be possible, but 50 percent cleaner or more is possible, and that is where we ought to go. That is where the Bunning amendment takes us. I tell you what I am going to do; I am going to vote for Senator Bunning's amendment, and I am going to vote against Saudi Arabia.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding. I appreciate the filing of that amendment. What Americans are frustrated by--and I think the Senator realizes that--is the lack of balance. He and I have said that. We can conserve and we can change and we can adjust and we can adapt, but we also have to produce, and that brings the balance. I think what you and I did very early this year helped drive the debate that is on the floor now, when we looked at biofuels and efficiencies and production in the SAFE Act and began to argue and articulate those points of view. I thank the Senator for filing that amendment because that completes a very necessary package that brings us to the reality of what Americans want from their energy portfolio.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the debate that has had the Senate occupied for the last several days is a fundamentally very important debate, for not only this Senate but certainly for the American people. There are a variety of things that have grasped the attention of the American consumer at this moment. Obviously immigration has been one, and we have been aggressively involved in that in the Senate the last month. The other thing happens weekly, when that consumer goes to the gas pump and pulls his or her car up and fills it. All of a sudden, they pay a $45 or a $50 or a $60 or a $70 fuel bill. They say: My goodness, how am I going to readjust my family budget to fit these kinds of needs? The broad bill we have before us is in part attempting to address that issue. There is no question about that. We are working very hard to get this country back into the business of production but in a diversified way. That is important. We should not be held hostage by foreign energy suppliers. Yet over the years we have drifted into that environment for a lot of reasons, some of them of our own doing, because we constantly restricted our own ability to produce and we have set standards that make it much more expensive to produce. Some of that production has gone offshore. But we have also grown, and we demand more. We have larger cars, and that is our choice in the marketplace. At the same time the American consumer is being hit by pump shock today, or nozzle shock, whatever you want to call it, in the reality of what we are about. On the electricity side of the issue--because that is a bit more subtle, because that bill doesn't happen every day or every other day or twice a week at the pump by the digits rolling in the pump to show you what it is going to cost you--it comes once a month in a power bill or it may even be automatically deducted from your checking account. The subtlety of energy costs from the electrical side are less, but they are still very real. In creating an abundant electrical market, we ought to be extremely careful that we don't limit it in a way that continually drives up the cost of electrical production. We have said, and we are continuing to say, the old concepts of electrical production are largely out or at least they aren't as clean as we want them to be. Because in the context of this whole energy debate, several years ago entered the concern about climate change, therefore, the emission of greenhouse gases that some believe are a major contributor to the warming of our globe. That is in dispute. I believe it is legitimately in dispute as to what or how or in what volume greenhouse gases play to climate change and warming, but the reality is, Americans say today: It has to be clean, or you shouldn't produce it. So we are now on the floor debating, if you will, cleanliness. Some years ago we started talking about that and we said: Well, the only way, 10 or 12 years ago, you could get clean into your electrical production was wind and solar. In the Clinton years, because of the environmental movement and the power they had over that administration, they no longer said hydro is allowed to be considered a renewable or a clean fuel. It is an anomaly of the past, and it dams up rivers and changes the ecosystems of aquacultures. We can't go there anymore. So they pulled hydro out of the mix and out of the blend. As a result, it doesn't get fitted into the environment of a renewable portfolio standard of the kind we are debating today. What evolved out of a 1990s debate to today is a standard we call RPS the Senator from New Mexico has introduced, and it is largely a wind standard. Yes, it includes biofuels, but it is dominantly driven by wind today. It creates a unique niche in the electrical market for wind, and it subsidizes wind. It requires that to meet the standard, you pretty much have to go wind. I have not disagreed in total with it in the past, although I have opposed it because I think it is an arbitrary act on the part of Government to distort the marketplace. But at the same time there is no question, through tax subsidy, a tax credit, that we have, in fact, driven the marketplace toward wind. That was then. What is now? The world has changed since the mid-1990s, since the concept of RPS. But we are still here having a 1990s debate when we ought to be having a 2010 and a 2020 debate. That debate is not all about renewable and all about wind. It is partially about it, but it is not all about it. Today it is about wind, biomass, biofuels in a lot of forms, nuclear-- clean, nonemitting sources. It is about new hydro efficiencies. We are learning very rapidly that efficiencies in the marketplace can create quantum leaps in savings and, therefore, less growth rate in demand of production. All of those ought to be a part of a test today, if we are going to establish national policy. If we are going to demand certain levels of performance out of the production side of our utility industry, our electrical industry, then we ought to be balanced. We ought to be broader and, most importantly, we ought to use a new, modern definition, a new, modern screen, a measurement. I don't think it is RPS anymore. I think it is clean. Having said all of that, if RPS survives this debate, here is what is going to happen. It is going to be a very expensive trip for the consumer and the taxpayer. If RPS survives and we don't move to a newer standard and we put into place the kinds of demands that take us to a 15-percent requirement and then we turn to the Finance Committee, I believe Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley--and we will debate that as it relates to wind energy and a tax credit on a 1, 3, 5, sometimes 10 years, someday probably a 10-year involvement--what will it cost? It is estimated it could cost $3 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, $15 billion, in a direct Government subsidy, a tax credit, to produce the RPS requirement that is being proposed. Fairness is fair. A CPS requirement will cost some money. We are having it costed out today. We don't believe it will be anywhere near as dramatic, because it will be spread amongst a much broader portfolio than the narrowest of an RPS. Is this an expensive process? You bet it is. When you enter a new technology into the market that isn't as efficient or competitive, you subsidize it. That is what we are doing with wind today. But we are creating a new uniqueness. We are saying: OK, here is a market niche for your wind. We are going to give you some of the market. Then we are going to give you tax credits and benefits to get into the market because we want you producing wind. So we are creating a very unique market niche, and we are saying to all the utilities: You have to meet it. Well, 23 States are already out in front of us. They have some form of RPS or renewable portfolio standard. Some of them are higher than the Bingaman standard, some of them are lower. But there is a movement out there, and there ought to be flexibility in that movement, instead of the rigidity that is the reality of the current RPS. That is what we offer in a CPS or a clean portfolio standard--broaden the base, get modern, let's do not keep regurgitating the past. I am always amazed that once one group--any group, any interest group--locks on to an idea they can capture the mind with, and they ride that idea for decades, sometimes when it no longer fits the technology of the day or the demands of the marketplace. I believe RPS is that idea that got locked on to in the mid-1990s that no longer fits the marketplace today. I do believe CPS fits the climate change concern, fits the regional disparity as a result of the geography of our country, where there is wind and no wind. I tell some of my southern Senator friends there is a lot of hot air in the South but there is not any wind. Well, there is not any wind in the South. So they have to go out and buy it. You have utilities in Florida buying wind farms out in the Midwest. Is that somehow going to make Florida cleaner? Why don't we give Florida the opportunity to build clean energy right in Florida, instead of buying something out in the Midwest to offset? It is a strange thing. It is kind of like: Well, we believe in a very green standard. You are going to have to buy your way in if you cannot produce your way in. I disagree with that. I think you ought to be able to produce your way in. I do not mind clean standards, but I do not think you ought to disadvantage certain regions of the country by the standard you are requiring. CPS changes that. It says we are requiring a cleaner standard in new production. You can do it through wind, as the Senator from New Mexico is proposing; you can do it through biomass; you can do it through new nuclear; you can do it through new hydro; You can do it through new efficiencies. If someday--and I believe it will--coal to liquids comes on line, you can do it through carbon sequestration or, ultimately, we may be able to retrofit our existing coal-fired generation facilities in a way to capture that carbon and sequester it. If we can, shouldn't they get credit for it? Shouldn't there be some benefit for cleaning up the air, instead of letting that remain dirty, but you buy your way out of it by going somewhere else to buy something that is clean? That is an interesting concept, but that is the concept if you do not identify with the marketplace and you do not identify with the regions and the capability of the regions and the uniqueness of our country today. That is why Southern Senators are frustrated at this moment, because the amendment on RPS says you cannot do it by what we say so you have to go somewhere else and buy it. Let's make the standard uniform. Let's make it fit all parties. Let's allow it to reflect the diversity of the countryside and the resource that is available in the countryside. We think that is possible. We think if you do it, it is less expensive than the RPS that is currently being proposed. Here is what I am suggesting to those who are a little concerned about budget exposure because we have not seen what the Finance Committee will do. But if the Finance Committee brings about the tax credits that we think for a 1-, a 3-, and a 5- and someday a 10-year reality, that cost could be $3 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, $15 billion. Current law is here. Future law could well be here based on what we think the Finance Committee will offer. So we create the marketplace niche today for wind, and tomorrow we finance it. It is a very expensive proposition. I have wind farms coming up in Idaho, and I am glad they are there, and they are going to blend and be a part of our overall economy. I am all for wind, but I am not just for wind. Again, it is a concept whose day has matured. It is an idea that now fits well beyond the 1990s into the year 2000 and beyond, as new concepts come on board. In other words, let's get modern. Let's build a policy for the future. Let's don't simply react to the past because the interest groups of the past are still here driving it. Let's think beyond that. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, that is my understanding, I say to the Senator, if there is a renewal of the tax credit based on what we think Finance will do. Here is the problem--

Mr. CRAIG. It assumes there is a renewal of it. Because what you do, what you know you are doing, if your policy becomes law--there is no opt out at this point--you drive the entire national utility marketplace to a standard. By driving them there, you give them this opportunity, and it is a U.S. tax opportunity. There is no question that is the tax credit. You must go here. And when you go there, you can identify with the tax credit under the assumption--and that is fair--the Finance Committee is going to come forth with it. And we have every reason to believe they will. That is what drives it. The reason it does is because, if you do not, you put the industry in a very precarious situation. Wind today does not pay its way. It is still on the margin. Based on its productivity in certain wind patterns, it has to be subsidized to fit into the market. How you subsidize it is through the credit, or you are simply saying you are going to do something you cannot afford to do, so you are going to have to go right to the ratepayers and charge them a much higher price than you otherwise would with the credit to come into compliance with the RPS. Yes. So that is the appropriate assumption of this chart.

Mr. CRAIG. And new hydro, where it fits, and efficiencies and sequestration, yes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, you are correct to assume a CPS standard would have a budgetary impact as much as an RPS standard. The RPS standard--as I have said, it is a bit old school, so it is considerably more measurable, and you are forcing production into a narrower slot in the marketplace--wind and bio--whereas we are broadening the slot dramatically. Yes, there are some of those new nuclear plants, as you know, as it relates to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that are going to have some tax benefits. The first certain numbers are. Sequestration, more than likely--to encourage it, and to make it reasonable in the marketplace-- is going to have some tax consequence. We promote efficiency in the marketplace through that. But in all fairness to the Senator, it is not yet a measurable item. Those who are looking at it now say it is probably spread and less costly, but it is also more than just a cost item. As I said, if you take a Florida utility that meets the standards by buying wind in the Midwest, it does nothing for the airshed in Florida; whereas, a CPS says you can build clean in Florida and benefit the airshed of Florida. I think there is the other side of that value. Lastly, if I could react, and the Senator would allow me to, I am all for biofuels. But driving the biofuel market under the current technology--I am surprised some environmentalists are not reacting because it is not a totally clean emitting technology. We are all for it because it is renewable. I am for it because it helps us clean up the forest floors and do a lot of other things that are the right things to do out there. But we also know when you burn it--and you are burning it--you have carbons, and that is escaping to some degree. So driving it is the right thing but giving clean options is also the right thing. That is what CPS does. Thank you.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today is a day of great significance to me and many Americans. In 1949, after decades of unofficial celebrations, President Truman signed an act of Congress that National Flag Day would be celebrated each year on June 14. Sadly, this national holiday goes unnoticed by far too many Americans. I wish to make a few brief comments about our Nation's flag on this day of celebration and remembrance. Whenever I get a chance to speak with foreign visitors to the United States, I like to ask about their impression of the United States, especially if it is their first time visiting. Time after time, they express amazement at the abundant presence of the U.S. flag, not only in Washington, DC, but in cities and towns of every size across the Nation. Truly, flags are flying everywhere, not only at government buildings but at restaurants, parks, malls, gas stations, along highways, not to mention inside and outside private homes. Flag pins adorn lapels, flag stickers grace our cars, flag designs make for popular home decoration, and on Independence Day, our clothing often takes on the theme of Old Glory. Clearly, we Americans love our flag and love displaying it. It is an expression of patriotism, reverence, and love of country. From 1776 to today, from the marines who fought their way to plant the flag at the top of Iwo Jima to the firefighters who lifted the flag above the ruins of the World Trade Center, it is clear that our flag represents so much more than a nation. In truth, the American flag represents thousands of years of struggle to achieve political liberty, religious autonomy, and freedom from want. More important, our flag represents the inspiration of the life of our Nation and what humanity has the potential to accomplish. Throughout our Nation's history, the American flag has enjoyed the protection of its people and its laws. Unfortunately, this safeguard was eroded in 1989 by the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson. This decision, which many of my colleagues and I agree was misguided, found within the Constitution a right that had never before existed: the right to physically assault the flag under the first amendment. Since then, Members of Congress have been faced with reconciling the tension between ``free speech'' and the symbolic importance of the American flag. As citizens, we can no longer allow flag burning to be considered a ``norm'' in our society. Although we can do nothing when terrorists or those with anti-American sentiments defile our flag abroad, we owe it to our brave service men and women, to ourselves, and to our children to do something when it happens on our own soil. Our colleagues in the House have submitted a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to protect our flag. I do not take amending the Constitution lightly, but I commend the sponsoring representatives for taking action on such an important issue. On this Flag Day, I hope we can all remember that our flag is much more than tightly woven cotton mixed with beautiful colors. It is a true symbol of the struggle of this Nation to remain free and it flies tall as a reminder to all of the liberties that we enjoy as proud citizens of this country. The respect that our flag deserves depends on us. I will close by quoting Franklin K. Lane, former Secretary of the Interior, who said this about the flag: I am what you make me; nothing more. I swing before your eyes as a bright gleam of color, a symbol of yourself.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I wish to honor one of Idaho's oldest businesses--Caxton Printers of Caldwell, ID. This year they are celebrating their 100th anniversary; they are older than many Caldwell mainstays including the J.R. Simplot Company and the Caldwell Night Rodeo. For 100 years, Caxton Printers has served the people of Idaho. Their ideals are reflected in the statement of one of the founders, J.H. Gipson: ``Books to us never can or will be primarily articles of merchandise to be produced as cheaply as possible and to be sold like slabs of bacon or packages of cereal over the counter. If there is anything that is really worthwhile in this mad jumble we call the Twentieth Century, it should be books.'' Well, times have certainly changed since then. One can only imagine what Mr. Gipson would say about the 21st century. Caxton Printers, though, continues to survive by focusing on quality--both in their service and in their product. My staff and I know this firsthand. What they do for us, though, is just a sliver of their storied history. During their first 100 years, the family-run business has been a shining example of a couple bootstrappers making it in the rural West. In fact, at one point, they were the exclusive printing and binding company west of Kansas City, and in the 1920s they decided to help western writers receive the attention they deserved. By 1928, they had produced five titles. Output steadily grew, and by 1936 they had released well over 100 new books. While they lost money on virtually every book published before World War II, Mr. Gipson ``felt repaid in producing at least a book or two which have a fair chance of gaining a place in the permanent literature of our country.'' Well, Caxton's most famous author, Ayn Rand, certainly achieved that acclaim. Caxton Printers has helped to preserve and tell the history of the West. In addition to focusing their publishing on nonfiction books about the West, they have served as the Idaho State Textbook Depository since 1927. Just about every student in Idaho has been impacted by Caxton Printers. I can tell you that this Senator certainly appreciates all they do to preserve and tell the stories of the people, places, and events that shaped the West. Over the past 100 years, Caxton Printers and the Gipson family have experienced a lot and, through it all, have prospered while remaining true to J.H. Gipson's philosophy of producing high-quality books and products. They make Idaho, and the West, proud.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Domenici will be to the Chamber in a few moments and is preparing to speak to the second degree to the Bingaman amendment the chairman has outlined. In doing so, I will touch for a few moments on some of the differences between an RPS and a CPS and some of the value of broadening the portfolio Senator Bingaman is talking about to create greater advantages nationwide for a larger amount of clean energy. There is no question that RPS, as we know it, invented in the mid- 1990s as a concept, evolving now to 23 States having accepted some form of an RPS standard, has a very strong bias for wind and biomass. It is there. We subsidize wind today. The letter the Senator introduced from the wind industry is reflective of the phenomenal subsidy they get and the advantage they get. We create a market niche for them with an RPS, and then we subsidize them. Frankly, I am for that. Wind energy and the more of it we can have is the right energy, along with all other forms. What the Senator did not say was the Southeast is dramatically disadvantaged because they don't have wind. As a result, they have to go buy or be taxed to offset the differences. That is unfair. Many of us believe it is unfair. We also believe RPS is not an obsolete standard but an old one. About 3 years ago, people looking at a broader portofolio of energy said: We ought to expand the standard. Today's mantra in energy, whether it is the Senators from New Mexico or this Senator, who is one of the senior members of the Energy Committee, is: Clean. America will not build new energy production unless it is clean. That is what RPS was originally heading us toward--cleaner renewable energies. So why shouldn't we expand that portfolio from wind and bio to some additional new forms--new nuclear, very clean; new hydro, yes, but limited; coal sequestration or carbon sequestration, clean; efficiencies, less use, less demand. Shouldn't they also be in this new portfolio? I say yes. America, when they understand it, would say yes. Right now there is a niche market, a very narrow one, for limited use in certain capacities and greater use in others. I see windmills coming up across my State today. Why? Because we have wind, and they are subsidized. There is an advantage to do so. But you don't see windmills coming up in Florida and other places in the South because there is not the kind of prevailing winds that sustain a 25- to 30-percent production efficiency of these particular kinds of units. Senator Domenici has just arrived. I will let him pick up the debate because he has led with this issue. I have been a supporter of it and have helped develop this issue. I believe it is time we modernize, move to clean energy, and reward the utilities that produce clean energy. It does not disadvantage an RPS. It simply expands and modernizes it into the concept of energy we are looking for today in the American energy portfolio. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will speak for a few moments. The Senator from Tennessee is here and waiting for some charts to visit about the issue that is before us, RPS versus CPS standards, that drive the marketplace toward cleaner fuels, renewable fuels, and a variety of different packages. A few moments ago, I mentioned, when the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, produced a letter from the American Wind Energy Association, that in part I believe CPS, based on their point of view, had been somewhat mischaracterized by that letter. Now, here is someone who supports wind. The Senator from Idaho strongly supports wind. We see windmills, large windmills, going up across Idaho. The Senator from Tennessee would come out there and say: Oops, there goes the landscape. There goes the vista. The Senator from Idaho is a little concerned about that, too, because some of those beautiful high plateaus of Idaho are now being dotted with windmills. At the same time, there is no question that wind remains a valuable source, and we are subsidizing it and supporting it. But I don't think we ought to bias the marketplace toward it entirely, and that is why you now see a new standard offered as a second-degree amendment called CPS, clean portfolio standard. When I say that, let me make the point that is important, that I think is critical. The American Wind Energy Association, when they mischaracterized clean portfolio standard, did so in the following ways: The proposed CPS clearly requires carbon capture and storage. They say it does not. The word ``sequestration'' means carbon capture and storage, and you don't get a credit for it until you do it. I think that is clear. I think that was a mischaracterization. CPS clearly states that any additional clean technologies beyond already highlighted would require the Secretary of Energy to determine, if they apply through a rulemaking process. In other words, no easy rides and no opt-out. We have 23 States that have some form of RPS, renewable portfolio standard. They have done it on their own. The Senator from New Mexico makes that point very clearly. There is a desire in our country today to move us toward renewables and a cleaner portfolio standard, but there is no opt-out in CPS. They come to the Secretary, and the Secretary certifies that which they already have, if it fits within the portfolio that is being proposed as a CPS. There is no State opt-out in that provision. CPS allows the States with existing clean portfolio programs to certify. I think that is a very important and necessary statement to make. I don't see that as an opt-out, I see that as conforming, giving credits to, and causing those who have already taken the initiative not to be penalized. It is arguable that the RPS that is being proposed in the Bingaman amendment would cause them to have to reshape or conform because they are all a little different or they couldn't gain as much credit under an RPS as they could a CPS. But that we don't know. What we do know is, no State opts out. We are now talking about a Federal standard against a myriad of State standards in which 23 States have already established some form of renewable portfolio. There is no uniformity in that 23-State standard, so, as I said, it is very difficult to comply with the standard. CPS is flexible enough, that it will not allow States to opt out. Deduct nukes from the base. By adding nuclear--new nuclear--we will have a much broader portfolio than I think Senator Bingaman's RPS. Adding nuclear does not detract from the accomplishments of that bill. It modernizes the bill. It brings us to where America's thoughts are today, not where America's clean thoughts started in the mid-1990s. Let's get modern. Yes, there are a lot of interest groups that have vested interests in the old standard. There are a lot of interest groups in this town and around the Nation that move very slowly. They move the body politics of their organizations slowly so they have to argue what was then instead of what is now. What is now in the minds of the average American who looks at new technology is: Is it clean? And if it is clean, it is acceptable. If it isn't clean, it isn't. Idaho is privileged at being right at the top of the States of the Nation in nonemitting sources, clean air, and less carbon. We are very proud of that--Vermont and Idaho. Last year, Idaho, a State that has largely accepted production in all forms, said no to a coal-fired plant. They said no because it wasn't as clean as they wanted it to be. But if it were a plant that could sequester, if it were a plant that were clean, and it was coal, why shouldn't it count today in a new standard? Why shouldn't the marketplace incentivize cleanliness--nonemitting sources--instead of the old nonemitting sources of the past--wind and biomass? But biomass, under current technologies, emits some CO2. It is much cleaner than most, but depending on the technology involved, is not a perfect form, if you will, compared to wind. But it is renewable, so under that definition, while it is not as clean as we would like it to be, and it will be in the future because it is renewable, it fits into the old standard. I think those are profound arguments that bring us to where we are today. And I would like to say to the American Wind Energy Association: You are not disadvantaged under CPS, but you are not exclusive to the market. You have to share the riches of growth in a clean technology with other forms as they come along. Yes, you will be subsidized, but you will not have exclusivity. I think for the West and for the marvelous open spaces and the vistas of the West, that is not all a bad idea. While I promote wind, and wind is now coming to Idaho, I don't think it ought to be exclusive in the market. As I have said before, and the maps have been shown, why disadvantage the Southeast? Why say to the Southeast you have to go buy it because you can't produce it? Let's give them an opportunity to be as clean as everyone else wants to be by giving them the advantages of all that is necessary.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I can't argue whether the Senator is or is not misreading. The intent is for the Secretary of DOE to certify that the State meets those standards, and if the State meets the standard that you and I would put forth, then why don't they have a chance to stand down for a time? It is a question of meeting the standard, not ignoring the standard.

Mr. CRAIG. Well, if it doesn't, I am one who would change that. It is clearly not my intent, nor I believe the intent of CPS, to allow States to opt out. It is to broaden the portfolio standard, not to opt out because I think, with 23 States now moving in that direction, there is a recognition of the value of some of this. If there needs to be a correction for your satisfaction as the chairman of the committee, I am certainly one who is willing to make that. But it was my understanding and my reading of the language that the Secretary of DOE has the right to certify, and in certifying could allow based on the standard met an opt-out.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we obviously have a disagreement as to what is or is not. But I think we both agree on a principle that we have just talked about.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Colin Jones, a DOE fellow from the Idaho National Lab, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy bill before us.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that T.J. Kim, with the Committee on Environment and Public Works, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the Energy bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota and I over the years have coalesced around a variety of issues we have been successful on on some occasions in causing to become public policy. Earlier this year--and Senator Dorgan has already mentioned it--we coalesced around three concepts we thought were critically necessary in a current and future energy portfolio and, therefore, the public policy that drives it. We recognized that efficiency would be and must be a part of the equation, that clean energy, the biofuels, must be a part of the equation for the future to make us less dependent. But also something that must be a part of the equation is production of current known and future sources of hydrocarbons. In other words--I will quote the Senator from North Dakota--you can't conserve or drill your way out of the current $3-plus gas we have and the greater dependency we have on foreign nations to supply us, but a combination of both into the future brings us to where this great country ought to be from the standpoint of a national energy policy. The Reid bill, the Bingaman bill that has been introduced on the floor, S. 1419, is about the future. You can stand on a hilltop and see it out there 25 or 30 years into the future. But the man or woman of the American economy today who is at the gas pump and filling his or her car or truck wants to know about tomorrow and next week and next year. Are gas prices going to continue to go up? What is the problem here? Why isn't this great Nation more self-sufficient? And for those who study energy a good deal and see a 60-percent reliance on foreign production, shouldn't we be worried about national security? Shouldn't we be worried about the emergence of petronationalism, about a little dictator down in Venezuela jerking the tail of a great country because he supplies 17 percent of our total foreign imports? Yes, we ought to be concerned about that. We ought to be angry about it. The reason we grew complacent, the light switch would always produce a light or the gas pump would always produce inexpensive fuel, is because it has always been there. What a large part of Americans didn't know is that politically and in a public policy way we began to set in place a series of things over the last 20 years that flattened production, made it less profitable, created self-reliance, and didn't compete and keep up with the amount of consumed energy we were requiring of a growth economy. As a result, we hit the wall. The wall is $3-plus gas. All power bills are going up. Energy is a part of America's disposable income and is becoming an increasingly bigger part. Americans are sitting now scratching their heads and saying: Are we going to have to change our lifestyles because energy is going to cost a lot more? My wife and I and a group of Senators, the week before last, traveled in Europe. As we landed at Andrews Air Force Base, got in our cars and headed home, I turned to my wife and said: I see we are back in the land of the big cars. That is part of our addiction. We love our big cars. We had been traveling in Luxembourg, France, and Italy, and by definition, it is the land of the little car. Why? Because gas over there from a gallonage point of view is about $7.50 a gallon. It is at least double plus a little more of what we are currently paying today. As a result, Europeans significantly over the last 20 years have changed their lifestyles because they couldn't afford the energy. I am not going to apologize because America consumes a lot of energy. We are nearly 26 percent of the world economy. We consume 26 percent of the energy base. Why? Because we are 26 percent of the world economy. It takes energy to produce jobs, to produce products, to create an economy. We are driven by energy. It is going to cost more to stay at 26 percent if we don't develop good public policy that gets us through tomorrow and takes us into the future in a way that the consumer can understand and appreciate. Consumers are angry today, and they have a right to be. They look at very large profits on the part of the oil companies and say: Look, it is their fault. Those profits are driven by demand and the ability to supply. There are no gas lines today because there is energy at the pump, but we are paying more for it. The Senator from North Dakota is right, the politics of this issue would change again if there were long gas lines at the pump and they were paying $3-plus a gallon. So the supply is there in the current form, but 60 percent of it comes from a foreign nation somewhere in the world. Most of those supplies and those foreign nations are in very precarious political situations. It is a very unstable world out there from whence these supplies come. As a result, the futures market anticipates that and builds a margin in to offset the risk to deal with the demand. What am I saying here? I am saying to the Senate today that S. 1419 is a piece of the total, but it isn't where we ought to be tomorrow. Tomorrow ought to be about energy security and energy production. You don't talk green, although you have to talk green and should talk green. You don't talk cellulosic ethanol being in production in 10 years at a rate of 15 billion gallons a year because it won't be, because the technology isn't there, although we are driving there. Energy efficiency, a CAFE standard, is a place we ought to go. I for the first time join with the Senator from North Dakota in a 4-percent mandatory efficiency. That takes us down the road. But that is out in the future. What about tomorrow? What about knowing where our current oil reserves are, the 15 or 20 billion barrels or more of oil that is in the Outer Continental Shelf that may be very accessible in a clean and environmentally sound way? What about expanding our refinery capacity? Because in this transitional period of the next two-and-a- half to three decades, where more cars will be electric, more cars will be hybrid, we will be producing 20 percent of our liquid transportation fuels from corn-based ethanol, cellulosic-based ethanol, to get to the 30 to 32 billion gallons a year. What about all of that? That is our future. My consumers in Idaho want to know about tomorrow. The Reid-Bingaman bill has nothing to do with tomorrow. We simply cannot ignore the next 10 or 15 years and jump into the future. We have to continue to produce and we need to produce. We have to continue to refine the hydrocarbons to supply the gas, and we need to expand that capability. It better be on shore. It better not be in Venezuela or in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or someplace else that is at this moment, at best, politically unstable, let alone Iran and Iraq. That is where our dependence lies today. To fail to address that in the Senate is to fail to address the No. 1 question of a great nation: How do we stay great? How do we stay at 26 percent of the world GDP? How do we stay generous to the rest of the world? We produce and push a lot of new technology, and that is in part what the Reid bill is about. That is all going to be transparent and giveable to the rest of the world. When we lead on energy in all aspects, the rest of the world benefits because we share it. Therefore, as this bill comes to the floor, there is a great deal that has to be done. We need a new RPS, renewable portfolio standard, wind, solar--a great idea, an old concept. Today's energy world is about cleanliness. Why not a new standard? Why not a clean portfolio standard instead of a renewable portfolio standard? Include wind, include solar, include sequestration of carbon, include efficiencies, include nuclear, include hydro. Let's get on with the business of being clean. If Senator Reid wants to come to the floor and talk about climate change, then he ought to be talking about all of those other things that drive the economy toward a cleaner energy future, not command and control but incentives, creativity, bringing off the laboratory shelf and into production the kind of things we know are already out there. Coal to liquids, what is wrong with that? Some environmental groups are wringing their hands and saying: There might be a problem there. We know it will burn 90 percent cleaner. That is not a problem. It is only in the mind of some idealist that it isn't perfect. How do you get to perfection? You start by adjusting and changing and improving. Today we are tremendously proud of our ethanol production in corn. But it has been 20 years in refinement and development to the distillery that is set up tomorrow somewhere in the Midwest. It is going to be so much better than the distillery that went into production a decade and a half ago. That is what this bill ought to be about, and it isn't there today. What about the tax incentives, and what is the Finance Committee going to do? None of that is there. This chart illustrates the problem. Here is the line for demand; here is supply. This is the hydrocarbons. That is pretty simple. Where does this margin come from? Offshore, foreign countries. High risk, less national security. Why do a lot of military leaders and those who look in broader terms support what Byron Dorgan and Larry Craig did today in the SAFE bill and those three factors about production, efficiency, and biofuels? They support it because of national security, taking this out of the equation, getting us back into production. You have heard me talk a lot over the past about the Outer Continental Shelf and the billions and billions of gallons of oil that is out there. We have allowed States to say no even though it is a national, Federal resource. Last year we picked up a little bit right here in lease sale 181, but here in the eastern gulf are phenomenal resources, billions and billions of barrels of oil that are very accessible, achievable in a sound environmental way, and we are still saying no. We are still saying, let a tinhorn dictator in Venezuela jerk us around. Here is another problem. The Cubans have said: Come drill us. The world is coming. The world is drilling in Cuba today. Vietnam came in last week. Spain, Norway, Malaysia, and Canada are 45 miles off our shore drilling for oil, but we can't drill. It is the ultimate ``no'' zone of politics. The ``no'' zone went up decades ago when the technology wasn't there to achieve the environmental standards upon which we demand and insist. The technology is here today. But the politics of Florida won't allow us to touch this. So the American consumer simply says: OK. I am going to pay more. I am going to pay another 50 cents a gallon so Florida can have its political way or anywhere else, for that matter, along the eastern seaboard or as it relates to this equation over here, the western coast, Alaska. Or have we come to a turn in the road where technology allows us to go there in a clean way and bring down that dependency, allows us to thumb our nose, if you will, at the foreign sources? Here is the other side of the equation. Nearly $300 billion a year leaves our shore to go to another country to buy their oil, and some of those countries are buying guns and shooting at us. How smart we aren't to allow that policy to continue to prevail. That is part of the debate in the coming weeks as it relates to 1419. It is not a complete package. It is way out into the future. It is not about tomorrow. It is not about national security. It is not about production. If we don't have those factors in a bill, this Senate will not serve its public and the American consumer in a responsible way in sustaining and building a great nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge a special milestone in the career of one of the truly great nuclear energy luminaries of our time. I am speaking of the retirement of Dr. James A. Lake of Idaho National Laboratory. During his nearly quarter-century of service to Idaho National Laboratory--and by extension, to all of America--Dr. Lake has applied his exceptional technical and managerial expertise to some of this Nation's highest priority research and development initiatives in the nuclear energy arena. From leading the design team that developed an innovative ultra-high-flux research reactor concept early in his Idaho career, to guiding the establishment of the U.S./Russian International Centers for Environmental Safety later on, Dr. Lake's contributions have had an extraordinary impact. As the elected president of the American Nuclear Society at the start of the 21st century, Dr. Lake did much to usher in the nuclear renaissance now sweeping the globe. In a single year, he personally visited 11 countries, a dozen universities, and more than 20 nuclear powerplants and nuclear facilities around the world. He also gave countless interviews with major television, newspaper, and magazine journalists--representing CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, BusinessWeek and others--to help them better understand nuclear power's unique abilities to dependably generate massive amounts of electricity--around the clock, rain or shine--without generating any of the greenhouse gases that are now of such global concern. Beyond his contributions to INL and the American Nuclear Society, Dr. Lake has also left his indelible mark of excellence on countless other organizations and activities ranging from the American Association of Engineering Societies to the International Nuclear Societies Council. He holds patents on ``An Inherently Safe Fast Breeder Reactor'' and other key nuclear technologies and has more than 35 publications in refereed journals and conference proceedings. Dr. James A. Lake--scientist, research leader, nuclear energy visionary, and gentleman--leaves a legacy of growth, safety, and success in the nuclear programs at INL, for which the laboratory, the great State of Idaho, and the Nation will be forever grateful. I extend my best wishes to Dr. Lake as he retires from INL and moves on to the next chapter of his remarkable life.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1202