Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. To our knowledge, there are only the three we have mentioned. Absolute clarity suggests you put those three in the text of your amendment and then say ``and any additional'' or others that may come along. Obviously, if your amendment becomes the law and other reports are required that might be outside the scope of the 1971 law, you would identify them with your law and make them a requirement of that filing for purposes of Internet access.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to use this occasion to recognize and commend the premier indoor high school track and field event in the Nation. Found in my very own backyard, the Simplot Games are held annually at Holt Arena on the campus of Idaho State University in Pocatello, ID. For the past twenty-three consecutive years, the Simplot Games have provided an opportunity for thousands of youths to compete with top-ranked athletes from every corner of the United States and Canada in a nurturing and supportive environment. Run almost solely by volunteers, the Games are a source of inspiration and pride for all participants. The J. R. Simplot Company, a sponsor of the Games, should be applauded for its dedication to the athletes, not only financially, but for providing such a stage to showcase so many talented young people from around the nation. The Simplot Games are held annually during the third weekend of February on the fastest indoor track in the country. It is certain a few national records will be broken every year before a cheering crowd of thousands, not to mention the national television audience. I had the opportunity to attend the games this year and witness firsthand the camaraderie and team spirit these exceptional young adults displayed. It was impossible not to be caught up in the excitement of this unique event. The Simplot Games are sanctioned by USA Track and Field, and awards are presented to contenders finishing in the top six places of their respective events. The Games are not just about athletics, but also about providing guidance and advice to the young competitors. Many notable athletes of Olympic and professional fame make a personal commitment to be a positive influence on the participants through their work with the Simplot Games. This year, Olympians included: Al Joyner, Honorary Chairman of the Simplot Games and 1984 Gold Medalist in the triple jump; Dick Fosbury, 1968 Gold Medalist in the high jump and U.S. Olympic Hall of Famer; Paralympian Marlon Shirley, 2000 Gold Medalist in the 100-meter dash; Andre Phillip, 1988 gold medalist in the 400- meter hurdles; and Dan O'Brien, 1996 Gold Medalist in the decathlon and University of Idaho graduate. In conjunction with the Games, the Adidas Golden Spike Invitational meet was held during the Simplot events. This professional event brought a hefty number of world class athletes to Pocatello to challenge each other for qualifying marks for the 2004 Summer Olympic Games. Through the competition, one hometown favorite was a particular bright spot: Stacy Dragila, 2000 Olympic Gold Medalist in women's pole vaulting, eclipsed her own world record of fifteen feet, five inches, by a full inch and three quarters. Next year the Simplot Games will be held February 14-16. I encourage all who compete or have sons and daughters that compete in track and field to participate in this world-class event. If you cannot make the competition, or cheer from a seat in the arena, I invite you to watch this exciting and uplifting event unfold from your own living room on television. I am proud that my state of Idaho is the home of this wonderful event and its sponsor, the J.R. Simplot. I am also proud of all the athletes who compete, not only with the other participants but with themselves, to be the best. It is encouraging for all Americans to see how our children are capable of rising above our expectations and accomplish great things. While I have the focus on Pocatello and Idaho State University, I would like to congratulate the ISU women's basketball team for earning its first berth ever to the NCAA Women's Tournament. The Bengals went undefeated in the Big Sky Conference this year and tied the nation's longest winning streak this season with 21 straight victories. Despite ISU's first round loss to Vanderbilt, the Bengals showed a lot of heart and determination, and I am proud of all they accomplished this year.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 29, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-124 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the Administration's National Fire Plan. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey (202) 224-2878.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am very pleased to stand with my friend and colleague, Senator Pete Domenici, as an original cosponsor of the Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001. Following on the heels of the introduction of the comprehensive energy bill last week, this bill takes a closer look at nuclear energy specifically and lays out a concrete plan to secure the continued viability of nuclear energy, our largest source of emissions, free electricity. Let me also note that I am very pleased that this is a bipartisan effort. I appreciate my colleagues from across the aisle who are joining with us in acknowledging that it is vital to take steps now in support nuclear energy and thereby, help to increase our energy independence. The Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001 is a package of measures which help our current energy situation by supporting nuclear energy research and development, by encouraging new plant construction, by assuring a level playing field for nuclear power by acknowledging nuclear's clean air benefits, and by improving the regulatory process. Although the bill does not explicitly address the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, the bill does create an Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research at the Department of Energy and provides for research into advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies such as those being studied at Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho. If my colleagues are wondering why it is important that we address the energy issue, they need look no further than the headlines. However, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to a study that was recently released on the subject of energy. The Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington, DC, recently released its study entitled, ``The Geopolitics of Energy into the 21st Century.'' Their findings are sobering and I want to take a moment to highlight some of their conclusions. I do this to provide the global context for our energy picture and to explain why it is so critical that this nuclear energy bill and the comprehensive energy package introduced last week receive our full attention. This study on the geopolitics of energy found that during the next 20 years, energy demand is projected to expand more than 50 percent and that electricity will continue to be the most rapidly growing sector of energy demand. Energy supply, not simply reductions in demand, will need to be expanded substantially to meet this demand growth and that the choice of primary fuel used to supply power plants will have important effects on the environment. Interestingly, this growth in demand will not be fueled primarily by the United States, as some might think. Developing economies in Asia and in Central and South America will show the greatest increase in consumption. The study points out that although the world drew some portion of its energy supplies from unstable countries and regions throughout much of the twentieth century, by the year 2020, fully 50 percent of estimated total global oil demand will be met from countries that pose a high risk of internal instability. Furthermore, the study concludes that a crisis in one or more of the world's key energy-producing countries is highly likely at some point between now and the year 2020. Given these predictions, I am alarmed by our current dependence on imported energy. I think it represents a very serious vulnerability in our energy picture. This situation makes it critical that the Senate act on energy legislation, to put in place the long term steps that will help us climb out of the energy deficit we find ourselves in. Problems, such as the current energy crisis, that have been years in the making will not be remedied overnight, but we need to start taking steps now to improve what we can. Taking constructive steps to strengthen our energy picture is what the Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001 is about. One of the first steps to be taken, is to recognize the tremendous contribution that nuclear energy already is making to our domestic energy picture. I think my colleagues might be surprised to hear that the U.S. nuclear industry is considered the strongest in the world. Measured in terms of output, the U.S. nuclear program is as large as the programs of France and Japan combined. Nuclear energy recently replaced coal as having the lowest electricity production cost, approximately 1.83 cents. The process for extending nuclear power plant licenses has been successfully demonstrated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Two plants have been successfully relicensed and three more are in the process now. Additionally, the nuclear industry continues to improve the efficiency of its currently operating nuclear plants. During the past 10 years, these gains in efficiency have added 23,000 megawatts to the power grid. This is the equivalent of adding 23 additional 1,000 megawatt power plants. This additional power has satisfied approximately 30 percent of the growth in U.S. electricity demand during the 1990s. What I have not mentioned in all this, is the important contribution nuclear energy makes in meeting clean air goals. If this nuclear generation were not in place, some other carbon-emitting source of generation would probably be taking its place. In fact, if you look at the portfolio of emission-free power generation in the U.S., nuclear energy comprises about 69 percent of our emission-free power, with hydroelectric power making up about 29 percent and the remaining less than 2 percent is made up by geothermal, wind and solar. The Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001 will authorize the exploration of advanced nuclear reactor designs which meet the goals of being economic, having enhanced safety features, while also reducing the production of spent fuel. The development of ``Generation Four'' nuclear reactors is something I am really excited about because much of the work done so far on Generation Four reactor design has been done at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and at Argonne West National Laboratory in my home state of Idaho. One of the reasons I am so optimistic about the ability of this country to tackle these tough energy challenges is the good work that I have seen coming out of our laboratories. When we unleash our best minds on these issues, really wonderful ideas come forth. That kind of creativity and initiative is what this bill is attempting to harness. I am excited to be a part of this bill and I thank Senator Domenici for partnering with me early on in the development of this bill and soliciting my input. I think we have a good product. As we move forward, I am sure we will receive additional innovative ideas. That is the challenge to all of us as we address our energy crisis--bringing the best ideas to bear. This bill is a good start to that process.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am very pleased to stand with my friend and colleague, Senator Pete Domenici, as an original cosponsor of the Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001. Following on the heels of the introduction of the comprehensive energy bill last week, this bill takes a closer look at nuclear energy specifically and lays out a concrete plan to secure the continued viability of nuclear energy, our largest source of emissions, free electricity. Let me also note that I am very pleased that this is a bipartisan effort. I appreciate my colleagues from across the aisle who are joining with us in acknowledging that it is vital to take steps now in support nuclear energy and thereby, help to increase our energy independence. The Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001 is a package of measures which help our current energy situation by supporting nuclear energy research and development, by encouraging new plant construction, by assuring a level playing field for nuclear power by acknowledging nuclear's clean air benefits, and by improving the regulatory process. Although the bill does not explicitly address the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, the bill does create an Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research at the Department of Energy and provides for research into advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies such as those being studied at Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho. If my colleagues are wondering why it is important that we address the energy issue, they need look no further than the headlines. However, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to a study that was recently released on the subject of energy. The Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington, DC, recently released its study entitled, ``The Geopolitics of Energy into the 21st Century.'' Their findings are sobering and I want to take a moment to highlight some of their conclusions. I do this to provide the global context for our energy picture and to explain why it is so critical that this nuclear energy bill and the comprehensive energy package introduced last week receive our full attention. This study on the geopolitics of energy found that during the next 20 years, energy demand is projected to expand more than 50 percent and that electricity will continue to be the most rapidly growing sector of energy demand. Energy supply, not simply reductions in demand, will need to be expanded substantially to meet this demand growth and that the choice of primary fuel used to supply power plants will have important effects on the environment. Interestingly, this growth in demand will not be fueled primarily by the United States, as some might think. Developing economies in Asia and in Central and South America will show the greatest increase in consumption. The study points out that although the world drew some portion of its energy supplies from unstable countries and regions throughout much of the twentieth century, by the year 2020, fully 50 percent of estimated total global oil demand will be met from countries that pose a high risk of internal instability. Furthermore, the study concludes that a crisis in one or more of the world's key energy-producing countries is highly likely at some point between now and the year 2020. Given these predictions, I am alarmed by our current dependence on imported energy. I think it represents a very serious vulnerability in our energy picture. This situation makes it critical that the Senate act on energy legislation, to put in place the long term steps that will help us climb out of the energy deficit we find ourselves in. Problems, such as the current energy crisis, that have been years in the making will not be remedied overnight, but we need to start taking steps now to improve what we can. Taking constructive steps to strengthen our energy picture is what the Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001 is about. One of the first steps to be taken, is to recognize the tremendous contribution that nuclear energy already is making to our domestic energy picture. I think my colleagues might be surprised to hear that the U.S. nuclear industry is considered the strongest in the world. Measured in terms of output, the U.S. nuclear program is as large as the programs of France and Japan combined. Nuclear energy recently replaced coal as having the lowest electricity production cost, approximately 1.83 cents. The process for extending nuclear power plant licenses has been successfully demonstrated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Two plants have been successfully relicensed and three more are in the process now. Additionally, the nuclear industry continues to improve the efficiency of its currently operating nuclear plants. During the past 10 years, these gains in efficiency have added 23,000 megawatts to the power grid. This is the equivalent of adding 23 additional 1,000 megawatt power plants. This additional power has satisfied approximately 30 percent of the growth in U.S. electricity demand during the 1990s. What I have not mentioned in all this, is the important contribution nuclear energy makes in meeting clean air goals. If this nuclear generation were not in place, some other carbon-emitting source of generation would probably be taking its place. In fact, if you look at the portfolio of emission-free power generation in the U.S., nuclear energy comprises about 69 percent of our emission-free power, with hydroelectric power making up about 29 percent and the remaining less than 2 percent is made up by geothermal, wind and solar. The Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001 will authorize the exploration of advanced nuclear reactor designs which meet the goals of being economic, having enhanced safety features, while also reducing the production of spent fuel. The development of ``Generation Four'' nuclear reactors is something I am really excited about because much of the work done so far on Generation Four reactor design has been done at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and at Argonne West National Laboratory in my home state of Idaho. One of the reasons I am so optimistic about the ability of this country to tackle these tough energy challenges is the good work that I have seen coming out of our laboratories. When we unleash our best minds on these issues, really wonderful ideas come forth. That kind of creativity and initiative is what this bill is attempting to harness. I am excited to be a part of this bill and I thank Senator Domenici for partnering with me early on in the development of this bill and soliciting my input. I think we have a good product. As we move forward, I am sure we will receive additional innovative ideas. That is the challenge to all of us as we address our energy crisis--bringing the best ideas to bear. This bill is a good start to that process.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the rules of the Special Committee on Aging be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to continue for no more than 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Reclaiming my time, let me ask for no more than 3 minutes. Would that accommodate the Senator from Arizona?

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. President. Before I speak to the two pieces of legislation that Senator Frank Murkowski has introduced today, let me thank the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for the leadership that he is demonstrating with the introduction of S. 388 and S. 389. This country cries out for a clear, well developed policy for both the production and the transmission and/or shipment of energy that we clearly have found ourselves now lacking and in need of. Every American is finally beginning to feel the pinch of energy; in this case, the lack thereof--whether it is at the gas pump, or whether it is in the power bill they receive monthly, or their space heating bill, or the cost of the goods that have a major component of energy in them. The Senator has just concluded speaking about the potential of producing upwards of 16-plus billion barrels of oil domestically in our country in addition to what we already have. I will say--and I am sure I will say it more than once over the course of the next several months of debate--the ANWR issue is not an environmental issue. It never has been, and it never will be. It is a political issue. The technology of today will protect that environment. When the oil is extracted and the wellheads are gone, it will hardly be noticeable that man, in the form of his modern technology, was there. This is a political issue by interest groups who need a cause. The Senator from Alaska has spelled that out well in the last few moments. But I rise today in support of national energy and a National Energy Policy Act of the kind that the Senator has introduced today and of which I am a cosponsor. Clearly, this is the year when I hope Americans will insist and that we will respond with the development of a comprehensive energy policy. We began to look at this anew in 1999. Back then, OPEC cut crude oil production to force up oil prices. We then had the luxury of very inexpensive crude oil. It worked. As you know, we saw our Secretary of Energy rushing off to the Middle East to beg them to turn their valves back on. While they did a little bit, they were destined to move crude oil from $12 a barrel to, at one point, a high of $32 a barrel last spring. Our motorists--all of us--were worried about the increasing cost of gasoline, and truckers were concerned about rising fuel oil costs. Also, residential consumers in the Northeast watched as their home heating oil bills skyrocketed last year and remained extremely high through this winter. In the past dozen months, the situation has worsened. Gasoline, fuel oil, and home heating oil have remained at a high premium. Natural gas prices have tripled to $6 per million Btu's from under $2 only a year ago. That is a tremendous increase in price. Natural gas production has remained static, even though the number of drilling rigs looking for gas has now tripled in the last year, as finally these unbelievable but very market-driven prices have resulted. Further, natural gas in storage is just about a billion cubic feet-- about half of what is usually in storage for this time of year. In other words, in that arena we are only half prepared. We simply cannot build the balance of the storage. Further, natural gas is clearly costing the residential consumer an astronomical price--but beyond where the gas line goes, where you have to use bottled gas out in rural America for cooking, heat, and some space heat, there, once again, it has tripled; and even for the poorest of Americans, it is a cost they are finding very difficult to bear. Wholesale electric prices too have risen significantly. Of course, we have all watched and been a part of--at least by action or by debate--the episode in California and the experimental, but very flawed, electricity deregulation effort that has produced an unbelievable high of nearly $300 for a megawatt hour in the spot market--$300 for a megawatt hour in the spot market--compared with just a few dollars at some points in an Idaho market a few years ago. That is a tremendous drive-up in cost. That is about 30 cents per kilowatt hour, or five times what the investor-owned utilities in California are allowed to charge their consumers. To bring it into perspective, my consumers in Idaho, right now, are paying about 3.6 cents per kilowatt hour against a California market that has peaked at 30 cents per kilowatt. Some folks would say Idahoans are not paying enough. Let me tell you, Californians are not paying what the market would teach them to pay if their policies were different. Then they would dramatically change the politics of their State because, once again, ANWR is a political issue and the energy crisis in California is a political issue--and a political crisis. Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric Company are struggling with a $10 billion unpaid bill for power. They were simply not able to go out and collect the money because California law would not let them collect the money for the very energy they bought to supply Californians. Californians have already consumed the electricity, but they have not paid the full price for it. California, due to a shortage in the State of power-generating facilities, has been forced to import electricity from as far away as Texas. And up in my State of Idaho, we now produce power for California. Power supplies in the Northwest--my region of the country-- have grown increasingly scarce. Competition for supplies and the fear that California utilities will be unable to pay their bills have forced up retail prices in Oregon, Washington, and my State of Idaho. When the previous administration arrived in 1993, it announced its intent to drastically alter the way the Nation used energy, especially fossil fuels--gas and oil and coal. President Clinton argued that a broad-based Btu tax would force us away from coal and oil and natural gas to renewable energy forms, such as solar, wind, and biomass. That objective has remained a hallmark of that administration's energy policy. Oh, yes, some of us have argued that the Clinton administration had no policy. Well, they came to town with one. And that one was rapidly rejected by the American consumer when the President said that the taxes he wanted to raise--nearly $72 billion out of the consuming public over a 5-year period--would help the market and help the environment. What it ultimately did--because it was rejected--was it caused even greater dependence on foreign oil and, of course, had phenomenal impacts, as we now see, on the consuming public. In fact, it would have unfairly punished energy-intensive States and industries. Estimates by the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers, at that time, predicted that the Btu tax, which was the hallmark of the Clinton policy, would reduce the gross domestic product of this country by $38 billion and that it would destroy nearly 700,000 jobs. Just in the last 2 quarters, this runup in energy price--which would have been equivalent to raising that kind of a tax, only it is now greater--has cost the gross domestic product almost a half a percentage point. Studies now show at least four-tenths of a percent loss, or nearly half a percentage point, and several hundreds of thousands of jobs. So those estimates way back in 1994 were not very far off. The administration claimed that the tax was needed to balance the budget and fund large new spending programs to offset the negative impacts of the tax. They also claimed that crude oil imports would decline by 400,000 barrels a day. At the same time, DOE's own projections predicted the tax would shave oil import growth by less than one-tenth a percent after nearly 10 years under that program. DOE predicted by the year 2000 Americans still would depend on foreign oil for three-fifths of their total crude oil requirements. DOE was not far off. With or without the tax, obviously with growth in the American economy and the tremendous wealth and advantages to the American consumer that the economy of the last decade has produced, we have grown dramatically more dependent upon foreign oil because we failed to produce our own. The American Petroleum Institute testified at that time that even if imports were to fall by the full 400,000 barrels a day claimed by the administration, the cost of a $34 billion in lost GDP is excessive relative to the alternatives of improving energy security. The story went on and on, and no energy policy got developed. In fact, quite the opposite occurred. A more restrictive approach to the production of domestic energy began to fill in behind the inability of our past President to force a huge tax increase on the American consumer. In the end, Congress refused to accept the Clinton administration's efforts to tax our relatively inexpensive energy sources to finance their grandiose tax-and-spend social agenda that Congress rejected. Congress did agree to raise taxes on transportation fuels. We did that by 4.3 cents per gallon, a move I opposed and believed was wrong at the time. It is wrong now. The past administration's obsession to reduce fossil fuel use as much as possible has put us in the position we find ourselves today. President Clinton said, on March 7, 2000, at the White House: . . . Americans should not want them [oil prices] to drop to $12 or $10 a barrel because that . . . takes our minds off our business, which should be alternative fuels, energy conservation, reducing the impact of all this on global warming. Here are the facts: Since 1993, domestic oil production has dropped by 17 percent. Domestic crude oil consumption, though, has gone up by 14 percent. Dependence on foreign sources of crude oil has risen to 56 percent in total crude oil requirements.

Mr. CRAIG. I asked for 10.

Mr. CRAIG. As I said, I am pleased to rise today to support introduction of the National Energy Security Act of 2001. At the request of the Majority Leader during the last Congress, Senator Murkowski and other Senators began the process of developing a solution to the energy ``fix'' in which we found ourselves in beginning in late 1999. Back then, OPEC cut crude oil production to force up world oil prices. It worked--oil prices rose quickly from about $12 per barrel and hit a high of about $32 per barrel last spring. Our motorists were worried about the increasing cost of gasoline and truckers were concerned about rising fuel oil prices. Also, residential customers in the Northeast watched as their home heating oil bills skyrocketed. In the past dozen months the situation has worsened. Gasoline, fuel oil, and home heating oil prices remain high. Natural gas prices have tripled to about $6.00 per million Btu's (British Thermal Units). Natural gas production has remained static even though the number of drilling rigs looking for gas has tripled over the last year. Further, natural gas in storage is just above 1 billion cubic feet, about half of what is usually in storage this time of year. Residential gas customers in some parts of the Nation have seen their winter heating bills triple. Wholesale electricity prices have risen significantly. In California, which is experimenting with a flawed electricity deregulation effort, electricity prices have been as high as $300 per megawatt hour (MwH) on the spot market. That's about 30 cents per kilowatt hour or about 5 times what investor owned utilities in California are allowed to charge their customers. Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric Company are staggering under more than $10 billion in unpaid bills for power. California, due to a shortage of in-state power generating facilities has been forced to import power from as far away as Texas and the Pacific Northwest. Power supplies in the Northwest are scarce and competition for supplies and fear that the California Utilities will be unable to pay their bills has forced up retail electricity prices in Oregon, Washington and my home state of Idaho. When the previous administration arrived in 1993 it announced its intent to drastically alter the way the Nation used energy, especially fossil fuels. President Clinton argued that a broad based Btu tax would force us away from coal, oil and natural gas to renewable energy from solar, wind and biomass--that objective has remained a hallmark of that administration's ``energy policy.'' The President promised the tax would raise nearly $72 billion over five years (1994-1998) and marketed it as fair, helpful to the environment, that it would force down our dependence on foreign oil, and would have trivial impacts on consumers. In fact, it would have unfairly punished energy intensive states and industries. Estimates by the American Petroleum Institute and National Association of Manufacturers at the time predicted the tax would hurt exports, reduce GDP by $38 billion, and destroy as many as 700,000 American jobs. The administration claimed the tax was needed to balance the budget and fund large new spending programs to offset the negative impacts of the tax. They also claimed that crude oil imports would decline by 400,000 barrels per day. At the same time, DOE's own projections predicted the tax would shave oil import growth by less than one-tenth after 10 years. DOE predicted that by the year 2000, Americans still would depend on foreign oil for three-fifths of their total crude oil requirements. API testified: ``. . . even if imports were to fall by the full 400,000 barrels a day claimed by the administration, the cost of $34 billion in lost GDP is excessive relative to other alternatives for improving energy security. Using the administration's optimistic predictions, the cost of the Btu tax works out to about $230 per barrel.'' In the end, Congress refused to accept the Clinton administration's efforts to tax our relatively inexpensive energy sources to finance their grandiose tax and spend social agenda. Congress did agree to raise taxes on transportation fuels by 4.3 cents per gallon, a move Republicans tried to reverse during the 106th Congress. The past administration's obsession to reduce fossil fuel use as much as possible has put us in the position we find ourselves today. President Clinton said on March 7, 2000 at the White House: Americans should not want them [oil prices] to drop to $12 or $10 a barrel again because that . . . takes our mind off our business, which should be alternative fuels, energy conservation, reducing the impact of all this on global warming. Since they came to office in 1993: Domestic oil production is down 17 percent; domestic crude oil consumption is up 14 percent; and dependence on foreign sources of crude oil has risen to 56 percent of total crude requirements. By comparison, in 1973, during the Arab oil embargo, our dependence on foreign crude was 36 percent of our total crude oil requirements. The past administration's failure to encourage domestic oil production and production of coal and natural gas has lead us to this point. That administration refused to acknowledge that vast reserves of oil and gas offshore, in Alaska and in the Rocky Mountain overthrust area should play a role in reducing our dependence on imported oil. The Clinton administration in 2000 announced a ban on future exploration on most of the federal outer continental shelf until 2012. In 1996 the Administration resorted used the Antiquities Act to create the Grant Staircase/Escalante Monument thereby dening access to about 23 billion tons of mineable coal reserves in Utah. The U.S. Forest Service has issued road construction policies that are designed to restrict the energy industry's ability to explore for oil and gas on Forest Service lands. Former President Clinton vetoed legislation in 1995 that would have opened the Coastal Plain of the remote Alaska National Wildlife Reserve denying the nation access to an estimated 16 billion barrels of domestic crude oil--which could amount to production of 1.5 million barrels per day over the next 20 years--about 10 percent of daily U.S. consumption. The Clinton administration ignored a report prepared by the National Petroleum Council, requested by the Energy Secretary, explaining how the nation can increase production and use of domestic natural gas resources from about 22 trillion cubic feet per year to more than 30 trillion cubic feet per year over the next 10 to 12 years. The past administration showed little interest in solving our domestic energy problems even as foreign oil producers have forced crude oil prices to over $30 per barrel and gasoline prices to almost $2.00 per gallon--double prices of only little more than a year ago. Mr. President, the past administration has acted in other ways designed to force us away from the use of readily available, relatively inexpensive fossil fuels, nuclear energy and hydropower. It chose especially to vilify and deny the use of our most abundant national energy resource--coal. The U.S. has the world's largest demonstrated coal reserve base and accounts for more than 90 percent of our total fossil energy reserves. At present rates of recovery and use, U.S. reserves will last more than 270 years. Coal is used to generate over 56 percent of our electricity supply-- and about 88 percent of the Midwest's electricity needs. Electricity from hydro represents about 10 to 12 percent of our electricity needs. Nuclear powerplants meet about 20 percent of our total electricity demand. Yet the past administration had a dim view of these sources and took steps to reduce their use. For example, former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt talked openly about ``tearing down dams'' in the West to restore habitat for fish, ignoring the power and transportation benefits they provide. And, the past administration imposed new, often impossible criteria that must be met before federal licenses can be reissued. Many existing hydro projects will seek relicensing over the next several decades. The past administration also vetoed legislation designed to create a permanent nuclear waste storage facility and which fulfills a longstanding promise by the federal government to create such a facility. Without a federal storage facility, U.S. nuclear generating stations, which are running out of on-site storage capacity may be forced to begin shutting down some operations. There are too many more examples of the past administration's failure to produce a coherent, balanced national energy plan. The result of this failure is tight energy supplies and high prices. Solving these problems requires tough choices and I suggest that we begin now by pursuing a number of short and long term objectives. I think the bill we are introducing today addresses these challenges. Mr. President, I want to touch briefly on two aspects that are of great concern to me and my fellow Idahoans. Chairman Murkowski has already gone through it in some detail. The bill contains provisions of great importance to the future of nuclear energy, which currently accounts for about twenty percent of U.S. electricity demand. Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, reliable technology which provides baseload power at low cost. The increase in natural gas prices has shown us the danger of relying on natural gas for all of our new electricity generation. Other countries have adopted the advanced nuclear technologies developed in this country and are putting them to use. In fact there is much excitement in the energy industry over plans to build a new type of nuclear plant--called ``pebble bed reactor''--in South Africa. I believe at some point in the future we will once again appreciate the value of non-emitting energy such as nuclear, and choose to construct additional nuclear generating facilities in the U.S. For this reason, I am working with my colleague, Senator Domenici, to develop other proposals regarding the nuclear energy option and we hope to have additional legislation soon for the Senate to consider. The legislation also provides important tax incentives to encourage the use of geothermal energy. I have personal experience with what a wonderful role geothermal can play in our energy mix because the Idaho Statehouse in Boise and other buildings in the downtown area are heated with geothermal energy. In the right applications, geothermal is a clean, efficient energy source available for our use and because there are no ongoing fuel costs and relatively inexpensive maintenance costs, after the initial capital investment, it is a very low cost energy option. Finally, Mr. President, I want to address the matter of power from hydroelectric facilities, upon which the Pacific Northwest is highly dependent. The relicensing process for hydroelectric facilities is becoming increasingly costly and time-consuming. It now takes more than five years to relicense a facility--up from only 9 months in 1980 according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Hydropower currently accounts for about 12 percent of the electricity generated in the United States and it produces that power without air pollution or the greenhouse gas emissions. Under current law, several federal agencies are required to set conditions for licenses without regard to the effects those conditions have on project economics, energy benefits, impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and values protected by other statutes and regulations. Far too often the relicensing process is plagued with agency disagreements and inconsistent demands. A very large number of public and privately owned hydro facilities will be up for relicensing over the next ten years. Some may be abandoned if the relicensing process becomes prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. The legislation being introduced today will help streamline the process and make the involved agencies more fully accountable for their decisions. The legislation does not change or modify any existing environmental laws, nor does it remove regulatory authority from various agencies. It does not call for the repeal of mandatory conditions on a FERC issued license. It is clear to me and many of my colleagues that hydropower is at risk and one of our most important tasks here in the Senate is to develop policies that lead to an energy strategy that will ensure an adequate supply of reasonably priced, reliable energy to all Americans in an environmentally responsible manner. The relicensing of non- federal hydropower can and should continue to be an important strategy. In addition, we should work with our Western Hemisphere neighbors to help them increase their crude oil and natural gas production. We should provide relief to consumers by eliminating the 4.3 cents a gallon tax on motor gasoline enacted in 1993. We need to step away from punitive, command and control environmental regulations and move toward performance based regulatory concepts that offer the regulated community opportunities to find flexible approaches to reducing emissions of legally regulated contaminants. We must carefully assess the capabilities of our energy production and delivery systems to find opportunities to improve system productivity, efficiency and reliability. We must ensure that sufficient funds are available to help those with lower incomes to weatherize their homes and pay their energy bills. While renewable energy sources provide only about 3 percent of total U.S. demand for energy, we should continue to provide incentives for our citizens to use wind, solar, and other renewables. We should encourage motor vehicle manufacturers to ensure that consumers have access to safe and highly efficient cars and trucks. We must realize that we are part of the problem. Our unwillingness to develop our own abundant oil, gas and coal resources dooms us to greater dependence on foreign sources, especially for crude oil. We must make the conscious choice to carefully find and develop our resources while protecting our environment. I conclude by drawing attention to a portion of this bill that is increasingly valuable; that is the area of new technology. Some who will argue against this bill would suggest that it is merely a reason to fall back to our habits of old. That is not true. We want to and will continue to fund the new technology, much of it started in the decade of the 1990s. It is clearly important. We are not always going to have hydrocarbons around, and we should not be that dependent upon them. But in the short term, in the next several decades, as we are using our resources and fueling our economy, we need to look at nuclear technology and new clean coal technology so we can use the abundance of these resources and in an environmentally sound way. In my State of Idaho, we are dependent on hydropower. There are many, including the past administration and many of their devotees, who would suggest the dams on those rivers that produce that clean source of energy, nonpolluting, nongreenhouse gas-emitting, that those dams ought to be breached. They insist that if the dams are not removed then they ought to be regulated in a much more stringent way. In fact, the licensing process the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has as a part of its responsibility to renew these hydro facilities is one that I am working on. And within this legislation is a reform of the licensing process, not to change it and take stakeholders or interested parties away from it, but to ask them to perform their responsibilities in a timely fashion and in a responsible fashion. Why should it take 10 years to relicense a hydro facility and cost millions upon millions of dollars that ultimately the consumer has to pay? If it needs retrofitting, if it needs improvement of technology for environmental reasons, those are conclusions that can be drawn in a reasonably quick way, and managed responsibly, so that we can balance out our energy needs. The legislation the Senate now has before us will be coupled with the work the Bush administration is doing now through their Cabinet level working group. This administration wants an energy policy, too, and it is their goal to produce one for the American people. Our economy depends on an abundant supply of environmentally sound, relatively low-cost energy. It is the wealth of our country. It is what drives this marvelous economic engine of ours. And it does something very simple--it puts money in the pocketbook of the worker. It turns the lights on in his or her home. It helps educate our children. It does all of the wonderful things we in America have grown to expect. Why should we suggest that we ought to have anything less if we can do it with the environment in mind and at a relatively low cost. That can be accomplished in a policy in which the Federal Government promotes the concept of energy production instead of setting up one trip wire after another to disallow it from happening. I look forward to the coming debate. I think it is critical that all of us get ourselves involved and educated in the issues at hand. These two pieces of legislation go a long way toward allowing that to happen.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the Republic of Korea's unlawful bailout of Hyundai Electronics, an issue of great concern to me and, I believe, should be of concern to the Senate. I rise to introduce this resolution with my colleagues Mr. Lott, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Bennett. In 1997, the International Monetary Fund, in cooperation with the United States and a group of financial institutions, put together an unprecedented $58 billion financial package to prevent the Korean economy from bankruptcy. As a part of that rescue package, the Korean government agreed to implement specific reforms aimed at addressing the problems that had led to the economic crisis in the first place. In recent weeks, the Korean government has decided to break completely with the policies that it has adopted over the past three years and is promising to provide a $2.1 billion bailout of Hyundai Electronics. This action not only runs contrary to the stated policy of the Korean government but also flies in the face of the government's clear assurances that this sort of wholesale bailout would not happen. This resolution is necessary because the present actions of the Korean government are a flagrant violation of Korean's international commitments. The Hyundai bailout violates Korea's International Monetary Fund Agreement; the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures; U.S. legislation to stop subsidies to the semiconductor industry in Korea; Section 301 of the U.S. trade laws, and U.S. countervailing duty laws. This unlawful and unwise bailout must be stopped. The conditions of the IMF Agreement are clear. The corporate governance provision of the IMF Agreement required Korea to end government-directed lending companies; to stop government subsidized support or tax privileges to bail out individual companies; to reduce the high debt-to-equity ratios of corporations; to reduce mutual guarantees within conglomerates; and to permit Korean bankruptcy laws to operate without interference from the government. The government's special waiver of the debt ceiling for Hyundai Electronic is a violation of Korea's commitment not to interfere in the lending practices of private banks and not to provide subsidies. The audacious Korean government announcement on January 3, 2001 dropped every pretense of legitimacy by notifying the intend to provide for the outright bailout of Hyundai. In a press statement, the government announced that the Korean Development Bank, a Korean government agency, would purchase $2.1 billion of Hyundai Electronic corporate bonds over the next twelve months. The move was clearly aimed at keeping Hyundai from defaulting on its massive debt. This action is outrageous and demands the immediate attention of the Korean government as well as Congress and the Administration. The bailout violates Korea commitments under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Korea's assistance to Hyundai Electronics, including the purchase of Hyundai's corporate bonds, the waiver of the bank lending limitations, and the increase in the limits on export loans, are all violative of Korea's SCM commitments, and are subject to WTO dispute settlement challenge. The assistance to Hyundai is a prohibited Export Subsidy, and meets the Adverse Effects or ``injury'' test. This bailout violates the conditions of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-277. Section 602 required that the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury certify that Korea was in compliance with its IMF Stand-By Arrangement provisions, including those I mentioned earlier, and that no IMF funds were being used to provide assistance to the semiconductor industry, among others. In enacting this provision, the Congress acknowledged the risk that, in the midst of the financial crisis, the Korean government would continue to attempt to keep non-viable companies afloat through directed lending and subsidies. The purpose of the provision was to create an enforcement mechanism for the IMF reform provisions, by providing for the withholding of U.S. support for further financial assistance to Korea, if the government violated the provisions of Section 602. The Treasury Secretary made several certifications pursuant to Section 602, making them prior to each remaining disbursement of IMF loans to Korea. In these certifications, Secretary Rubin certified to Congress that Korea was implementing the reforms that it had agreed to in its IMF loan agreement and also that IMF funds were not being used to provide subsidies to the semiconductor industry. In recent weeks, the Korean government has violated both the letter and the spirit of Section 602, directly frustrating Congressional intent. The Korea government has said that it will not make any further draws on the stand-by credits from the IMF, so the U.S. government does not have the leverage of threatening to stop future loan disbursements under the current IMF program. In sum, they have taken American tax dollars and run, without fulfilling the commitments they made. It's an outrage. The assistance to Hyundai Electronics is a subsidy under the U.S. countervailing duty law. The benefits received by Hyundai under the Korea government's bailout program constitute a countervailable subsidy under the U.S. countervailing duty law. Section 771(5) provides that a subsidy is one that ``provides a financial contribution . . . to a person and a benefit is thereby conferred.'' This financial contribution can include ``the direct transfer of funds, such as grants, loans, and equity infusions, or the potential direct transfer of funds or liabilities, such as loan guarantees.'' The statute also specifies that the determination of whether a subsidy exists shall be made ``without regard to whether the subsidy is provided directly or indirectly on the manufacture, production, or export or merchandise.'' Thus, a subsidy can exist even if the government does not directly provide the subsidy, but directs a bank to provide the subsidy. The statute also specifies that a benefit ``shall normally be treated as conferred where there is a benefit to the recipient.'' In the case of a loan, there is a benefit to a recipient ``if there is a difference between the amount the recipient of the loan pays on the loan and the amount the recipient would pay on a comparable commercial loan that the recipient could actually obtain on the market,'' 19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(E)(ii). Thus, the Commerce Department, when determining whether a program is a countervailable subsidy, looks to the benefit to the recipient rather than the cost to the provider of the subsidy. In the case of Hyundai Electronics, the company would not be able to obtain any loans ``in the market'' absent government intervention. Private concerns are reluctantly willing to roll over Hyundai's debt only because the government is involved. In short, because of the preferential financing Hyundai receives under these government actions, and because of the very substantial size of the loans in question, Commerce's investigation of these programs in the course of a countervailing duty proceeding would be almost certain to find substantial subsidy margins. In conclusion, Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed in Korea's actions in regards to this matter. It is clear that Korea is purposefully circumventing the will and intent as well as the spirit and letter of the IMF agreement the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, U.S. legislation to stop subsidies to the semiconductor industry in Korea, and U.S. countervailing duty laws. Korea must not be permitted to backtrack on the reforms it made that were requirements for IMF and U.S. assistance, just because it is no longer drawing on those loans. The very purpose of the reform measure was to put Korea on stable financial footing. Now Korea is unraveling its reform measures, in order to prevent a failing company from going bankrupt. Such actions cannot be overlooked, but should be dealt within the strongest possible manner. I am very disappointed that the Korean government has acted in bad faith with respect to its commitments. The U.S. Administration and the U.S. Congress must work together to find an effective and just response to Korea's action. This bailout undermines Korea's credibility in international financial circles and threatens the bilateral economic relationship between the United States and Korea. It must be stopped. Mr. President, I would not come to the floor and speak in these terms, nor would I have gained the sponsorship by key leaders here in the Senate that I have, if we did not think this was important. American taxpayers willing to help stabilize the world economy and willing to help stabilize its friends in the world by contributing $58 billion for those purposes, in working with the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, should not now be ignored, nor should what we have said be ignored in this process. With that, I introduce this Senate concurrent resolution speaking to that very issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor not to respond to Senator Feinstein. There will be ample time. I understand the chairman of the Energy Committee has agreed to a hearing date for the Senator's legislation, and there will be ample opportunity to examine the concept of cost plus pricing into the marketplace. The reason one of Idaho's Senators is on the floor this afternoon and the reason one of Oregon's Senators is on the floor this afternoon is that what is happening in California is rapidly spreading into Oregon and Washington and Idaho. Why would a power disease in California spread to Oregon and Idaho? In part because we are in the same system or grid--we are interconnected--and in part because we sell power to California and California sells power to us. When you distort a marketplace in one part of the market system, it overacts or reacts somewhere else. What the Senator from California is talking about is absolutely true. I will have to say I am pleased when I hear Senators from California say: We have a problem, and we probably didn't do it right. We are probably a creator of our own problem. When you deregulate wholesale power and you cap retail power, you send a phenomenally loud message to the marketplace: Don't come and build. You cannot evaluate or bring back your values, and you have protected the consumer in a false marketplace environment. California has recognized that and they are trying to do something about it. I am pleased the Senator from California did not propose to cap wholesale prices. I think it would be a phenomenal distortion at this time to do that. A couple of Governors have said, yes, it is a good idea. But eight Governors just wrote the President and FERC and the Vice President and said: Please don't go in that direction, don't coddle the consumer, because if you coddle the consumer, the consumer doesn't understand and will not put pressure on the politician to get out of the way and let the marketplace work. That is really the problem we are in at this moment. Compounded with the growth of the region and the crisis in California, the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Idaho have a predominantly hydro-based system. Our system is run by water flowing through turbines held back by dams on large rivers. When it doesn't snow and rain in the West, and especially in the Pacific Northwest, there isn't enough water to be held by the dams to flow through the turbines to generate the power. Come May of the year 2001--this May--when power usage starts going up in California, and in Oregon, and in Washington, and in Idaho, Idaho will be in big trouble because our moisture for the winter is not at 100 percent or 110 percent of normal; it is now at about 60 percent region-wide. We are in a dry winter in the West, and we are not producing the snow to flow to the reservoirs to generate the power. We in Idaho will be in a crisis environment if it doesn't improve rapidly, as will be true in the State of Oregon. What California, in large part, has caused, we are now asking our consumers to pick up the bill for because, unlike California, the consumers in Oregon and Washington and Idaho are not protected by a retail price cap. Our utilities, under order or fixed contract, have certain lids to bump up against. But the average consumer is going to feel this by 20-, 30-, 40-, 50-percent rate increases, while California basically takes none, or very little. How can that possibly be fair if California is largely a part of the problem, if not the largest part of the problem? Because while they have brought on some new production compared to their growth, they have brought on very little, and they have not built the transmission systems to make all of that happen. We started hearings, and we are going to ask that we move quickly, Mr. President. We know that the President and the Vice President have assembled Cabinet-level counsel to look at the long-term problem. But we in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho are going to have to sort out the short-term problem, and that is now, in April, May, June, July, August, and September of this year when this crisis will sweep across the Pacific Northwest, at a time when we need power to not only fuel our refrigerators at home but our factories and our irrigation pumps to keep our agriculture alive and our men and women working. Cost-plus pricing is not an answer--again, a false message to the market, a new bureaucracy at FERC. Power will not flow to California; it will flow away from California, if the markets of California do not reflect the true price. That is the reality of the marketplace, and you can't fix it by some Federal bureaucracy or well-intended piece of legislation. The Senator from California is right: Let's get to the business of siting powerplants, building transmission lines, and doing it in an environmentally safe, but a responsible way, and allowing our consumers once again to have affordable power. Those are some of the issues we must deal with quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand there is a UC and I have been included in that for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that 5 of my 10 minutes be yielded to the Senator from Oregon, who is on the floor. Prior to proceeding with that, I am happy to yield to Senator Boxer from California for a couple of minutes to respond to the legislation Senator Feinstein has just introduced.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me take a few additional moments to speak to the Senate about a friend of ours who has worked with us in the Senate for a good number of years. This week marks the last week of work for the Senate in the career of Loretta Symms. Loretta, as I mentioned, has become a friend of all of us while she has worked n the Senate. Loretta, who is originally from Coeur d'Alene, IO, moved to Washington in the midseventies and began her career working for then- Congressman Steve Symms as executive assistant and office manager. In 1981, after Congressman Symms was elected to the Senate, Loretta became his executive secretary and then office manager. Most in the Senate got to know Loretta in 1987 when Senator Bob Dole appointed her as the Republican representative to the Sergeant at Arms Office. Between 1987 and 1996, Loretta filled a number of positions within that organization. As its director, she restructured the Capitol Facilities Department, providing career ladders, formal position descriptions, instituting reading programs, basic computer classes for employees, and other training programs--clearly, an effort to build a more professional staff within the Sergeant at Arms Office. Loretta also participated in the renovation and the opening of Webster Hall, the first and current Senate page dormitory. Like you, Mr. President, I have had the privilege now of having several Senate pages, and I know they appreciate the facilities that are made available for them and, of course, the educational program that is provided to them while they serve us in the Senate. Loretta worked closely with the Office of the Secretary of the Senate and has been actively involved in the oversight and the management of the Senate page program. In 1996, Senator Trent Lott named Loretta Deputy Sergeant at Arms, the post in which she still serves. As deputy, Loretta has managed the day-to-day operations of 750 employees of the Sergeant at Arms organization. In addition to assisting Presidents, Vice Presidents, and foreign heads of state on official visits to our Senate, Loretta has led Senate delegations to the funerals of former President Richard Nixon, the late Senator John Heinz, the late Senator John Chafee, the late Senator Paul Coverdell, and a good number of other Senators. During her tenure as deputy, and working closely with the Assistant Secretary of the Senate, Loretta was instrumental in the formation of the Joint Office of Education and Training which provides a wide variety of professional seminars and training for the staff of the Senate offices and committees. Loretta is married to former U.S. Senator Steve Symms. They have 7 children and 10 grandchildren. Retirement plans, she tells me, include building a new home that I think is under construction at this moment, traveling--that is if she can get Steve out of town--needlepoint, which she already does very well, and spending a lot of time with her children and grandchildren who live as far away as Atlanta, GA, and in her original home of Coeur d'Alene, ID. Of course, we Idahoans look forward to seeing her back home in our State. Yes, Mr. President, we will miss Loretta and, of course, the fine work she has always provided us in the Senate. As a fellow Idahoan, I stand before you today to say how proud I am of Loretta Symms for the work she has done for all of us and to make the Senate a better place to be and to work. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have a series of unanimous consent requests that I will proceed with. I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, February 7, the Senate proceed to the U.N. dues bill if reported by the Foreign Relations Committee, and all amendments offered be relevant to the subject matter of the bill and cleared by both managers. I further ask consent that if the committee has not reported the bill by 1 p.m., it be immediately discharged and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. I do not yield. I have another unanimous consent to put us in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as a Senator, I do not serve on the Judiciary Committee, but I have watched nearly every hour of their hearing on the confirmation of John Ashcroft to be our next Attorney General of the United States. I have watched while men and women of good will, while attempting to speak in soft and mellow tones, have been intimidated and bludgeoned by the far left to such a point that we now hear them come to the floor of the Senate and reach to find excuses to vote against a man of good faith and a man of good will. I am not an attorney, nor have I ever claimed to be, but as a human being who has served in public life for a good number of years and associated with a great many people, I believe I am a reasonable judge of character. This afternoon, I heard a speech from one of my colleagues about seeing into the heart of John Ashcroft. That particular Senator said that once she had viewed the heart of John Ashcroft, she could not support him. I suggest to that Senator that I have not seen into the heart of John Ashcroft, but I know it because I have lived near it and around it for the last 6 years. I know of its sincerity and its compassion. I know of its love of people and love of this institution. I know of its great patriotic pride for its country. I know of a heart that has served as a State attorney general, a Governor, a Senator, and who will soon serve as the U.S. Attorney General. No, I have not seen the heart. I know the heart, and I know it to be a heart of compassion, but I also know it to be a heart of truth, one who, when he looks into the eyes of his colleagues and says, ``I will enforce the laws of this Nation,'' he and he alone is telling the truth. Why could we assume he would tell the truth when others in past years have failed that test? Because he is a moral and ethical Christian. That is a very valuable and important definition to understand because if you meet that definition, you must enforce the law; it is within your character and your being that you do such. Lawmakers and law enforcers are different types of people, but within the character of the definition I have just given, they are people who, by their very being, must enforce the law. They cannot arbitrarily, they cannot philosophically, nor can they politically, adjust the law as we have seen it for 8 long years be adjusted to meet the politics of the day. Quite the opposite happens with a man of the character of John Ashcroft; for if he does not like the law, if he does not feel it comports to his belief of what the culture and the character of our country ought to be, does he not enforce it? No. He turns to the lawmaking body, us, and says: You ought to change the law. It does not fit the character or the essence of the American way of life. But while it is here, I will enforce it as your Attorney General. You see, I must; it is my responsibility. I have taken the oath of office, and in taking that oath, I must uphold the law. Yes, John Ashcroft is a Christian. He is a man of faith. My wife Suzanne and I know John and Janet Ashcroft well and personally. We have traveled around the country and around the world with them. He is a close, personal friend. In all of those times that we have traveled together, I have never heard him once speak ill of another human being. Not once have I ever heard him impugn the character of another human being. Oh, John Ashcroft is a passionate man. He believes strongly in certain ``isms.'' But most importantly, he believes in Jesus Christ. He is a Christian. That is a character valuable to the culture of our country. What I have seen or what I have felt over the last several weeks is the ultimate test coming down on John Ashcroft. While it has not been spoken, I sincerely believe it has been implied, that if you are a Christian, if you are a person of faith, you cannot serve in public life and in public office in this country because it, in some way, ``taints'' the way you think, the way you act, the way you respond. I offer that challenge up to all of my colleagues because if that is what is being implied by the far left today, then shame on them, for it is outside the character of this country and it is outside the Constitution of this country. Let me read from article VI. The last full paragraph of that article says: The Senators, and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. That is the Constitution of the United States. That is the hallowed voice of our Founding Fathers. Yet by implication and innuendo, the far left of this country has implied, time and time again over the last several weeks, that a Christian person, a person of faith, cannot be trusted to serve and render the just and appropriate interpretation of the laws of this country. That is not only wrong for our country; that is wrong under our Constitution. That test can never be allowed to be applied, whether on the right or on the left or down the center. It is a test of character that we have prohibited in this country for all time. And because we have prohibited it, our country is a sanctuary for all the world to seek. Mr. President, I am confident, because I know John Ashcroft--I know his heart, that he is a man of unquestionable character who will do as he has said he will do before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate-- that he will enforce the laws of this land, so help him God. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for yielding me time to speak on behalf of the nomination of Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior. As someone who knows Ms. Norton, I commend her to my colleagues as an Interior Secretary who will cooperate with Congress and collaborate with States and local governments and communities of interest affected by her Department's decisions. I also commend her to my colleagues as a person who demonstrated in her two days of testimony before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that she possesses the balanced views and judgment and personality required to be a Secretary of the Interior. That was perhaps somewhat of a surprise, I think, to some of our committee members who had heard about Ms. Norton only through the advertisements of a $2 million media campaign waged against her nomination by national environmental groups. I don't believe it has been since Jackie Gleason--and we remember Jackie Gleason, fist doubled up, face flushed--railing against his Honeymooner's neighbor by the name of Norton. We kept hearing ``Norton, Norton.'' I don't think we have heard that name Norton, spoken with so much venom since the days of Jackie Gleason. Unfortunately, national environmental groups literally have become the Ralph Cramden of the advocacy community--overbearing, overwrought, and overstuffed--in their case, with foundation money that could have been so much better spent on on-the-ground conservation priorities. The Senate confirmation process is also a bit of an acronym in this era of 24/7 news coverage--that is, round the clock news coverage and continuous campaigning. Every elected official knows, as we all must understand, the peril of letting an attack against a candidate or a legislative proposal go unanswered within a 24-hour news cycle. And yet, to protect our prerogatives as Senators in this process that we are talking about today, we insist that nominees for public office remain silent until they appear before us for their confirmation hearings. At those hearings on January 18 and 19, Ms. Norton finally was able to speak about what she believes and who she is. The contrast with what was falsely portrayed in 3 weeks of intensified interest group advertising was stark and it was vivid. It contributed, I think, to the overwhelming vote by the committee in favor of her confirmation. Two themes, in particular, that emerged from her testimony, deserve the close attention of all of our colleagues. First, this is an Interior Secretary who is committed to working with Congress. That is a refreshing and important concept. Both in her opening statement, as well as in several thoughtful responses to questions, Ms. Norton expressed her commitment to working with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to develop bipartisan solutions to difficult natural resource problems. This is a sharp contrast to her predecessor who made no secret of his disdain for the congressional authorizing committees as little more than ``highly partisan debating societies'' that were staffed by ``munchkins'' and that do nothing more than ``wrangle a lot'' about the issues of the day. I also doubt that we will see Ms. Norton walk off camera during a ``20/20'' interview, swearing under her breath. Second, this is an Interior Secretary who is committed to listening and working with the people affected by her decisions. She said: I am firmly committed to a process of consultation and collaboration. We should listen to all voices and involve all citizens. That is fair. It is also wise. People are magnificent resources for ideas, for knowledge, for insight. I have lived and worked here in Washington. I have also lived and worked in the great American West. Those of us in Washington need to be good partners with Americans living in other parts of the country and in our territories. America is a strong nation because of the diversity of its people. These people hold many different views in different perspectives. We need to work with them, to involve them, to benefit from their creativity and their capacity to innovate. What a refreshing statement compared with the Secretary of the Interior who has now just left this city. I submit to my colleagues that, whatever our differences with one another over the contentious issues and whatever differences some or all of us may ultimately have with the new administration, starting off with the Secretary of the Interior who is committed to being a listener is a very good place to begin. As she so eloquently said at her confirmation hearing, ``Using consultation and collaboration, forging partnerships with interested citizens, together we can all succeed in our effort to conserve America's most precious resources.'' I urge my colleagues to vote favorably for the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior of the United States. Our environment, our public land resources, and the Nation as a whole depend upon it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Daschle to introduce the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act of 2000--to provide assistance to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private land. I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Burns, Conrad, Crapo, Dorgan, Johnson, and Gordon Smith are joining us as original cosponsors. I have stood before Congress for the past three years pushing legislation and speaking on the issue of noxious weeds. I know some members tire of hearing me bring up this issue, but I have seen the destruction caused when non-native weeds are not treated and are left to over take native species. Non-native weeds threaten fully two-thirds of all endangered species and are now considered by some experts to be the second most important threat to bio-diversity. In some areas, spotted knapweed grows so thick that big game like deer will move out of the area to find edible plants. Noxious weeds also increase soil erosion, and prevent recreationists from accessing land that is infested with poisonous plants. Because of these problems, during the 106th Congress I introduced and worked to pass the Plant Protection Act. As you may recall, that bill primarily dealt with Animal Plant Health Inspection Service's authority to block or regulate the importation or movement of a noxious weed and plant pest, and it also provides authority for inspection and enforcement of the regulations. Basically the bill focused on stopping the weeds at the border. Stopping the spread of noxious weeds requires a two pronged effort. First, we must prevent new non-native weed species from becoming established in the United States, which was the focus of the Plant Protection Act. Second, we must stop or slow the spread of the non- native weeds we already have, which is the focus of the Harmful Non- native Weed Control Act. I have been working with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, and the Nature Conservancy to develop the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act. This legislation will provide a mechanism to get funding to the local level where weeds can be fought in a collaborative way. Working together is what the entire initiative is about. Specifically, this bill establishes, in the Office of Secretary of the Interior, a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed management entities. The Secretary of the Interior appoints an Advisory Committee of ten individuals to make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual allocation to funds. The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, will allocate funds to States to provide funding to eligible weed management entities to carry out projects approved by States to control or eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private lands. Funds will be allocated based on several factors, including but not limited to: the seriousness of the problem in the State; the extent to which the federal funds will be used to leverage non-federal funds to address the problem; and the extent to which the State has already made progress in addressing the problems. The bill directs that the States use 25 percent of their allocation to make base payments and 75 percent for financial awards to eligible weed management entities for carrying out projects relating to the control or eradication of harmful, non-native weeds on public or private lands. To be eligible to obtain a base payment, a weed management entity must be established by local stakeholders for weed management or public education purposes, provide the State a description of its purpose and proposed projects, and fulfill any other requirements set by the State. Weed management entities are also eligible for financial awards--funds awarded by the State on a competitive basis to carry out projects which can not be funded within the base payment. Projects will be evaluated, giving equal consideration to economic and natural values, and selected for funding based on factors such as the seriousness of the problem, the likelihood that the project will address the problem, and how comprehensive the project's approach is to the harmful, non-native weed problem within the state. A 50 percent non-federal match is required to receive the funds. The Department of Agriculture in Idaho (ISDA) has developed a Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds through a collaborative effort involving private landowners, state and federal land managers, state and local governmental entities, and other interested parties. Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are the centerpiece of the strategic plan. CWMAs cross jurisdictional boundaries to bring together all landowners, land managers, and interested parties to identify and prioritize noxious weed strategies within the CWMA in a collaborative manner. The primary responsibilities of the ISDA are to provide coordination, administrative support, facilitation, and project cost- share funding for this collaborative effort. Idaho already has a record of working in a collaborative way on this issue--my legislation will build on the progress we have had, and establish the same formula for success in other states. As I have said before, non-native weeds are a serious problem on both public and private lands across the nation. They are particularly troublesome in the West where much of our land is entrusted to the management of the federal government. Like a ``slow burning wildfire,'' noxious weeds take land out of production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their livelihoods--including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others. I believe we must focus our efforts to rid our lands of these non- native weeds. Noxious weeds are not only a problem for farmers and ranchers, but a hazard to our environment, economy, and communities in Idaho, the West, and for the country as a whole. We must reclaim the rangeland for natural species. Noxious weeds do not recognize property boundaries, so if we want to win this war on weeds, we must be fighting at the federal, state, local, and individual levels. The Harmful Non- native Weed Control Act is an important step to ensure we are diligent in stopping the spread of these weeds. I am confident that if we work together at all levels of government and throughout our communities, we can protect our land, livelihood, and environment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Daschle to introduce the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act of 2000--to provide assistance to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private land. I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Burns, Conrad, Crapo, Dorgan, Johnson, and Gordon Smith are joining us as original cosponsors. I have stood before Congress for the past three years pushing legislation and speaking on the issue of noxious weeds. I know some members tire of hearing me bring up this issue, but I have seen the destruction caused when non-native weeds are not treated and are left to over take native species. Non-native weeds threaten fully two-thirds of all endangered species and are now considered by some experts to be the second most important threat to bio-diversity. In some areas, spotted knapweed grows so thick that big game like deer will move out of the area to find edible plants. Noxious weeds also increase soil erosion, and prevent recreationists from accessing land that is infested with poisonous plants. Because of these problems, during the 106th Congress I introduced and worked to pass the Plant Protection Act. As you may recall, that bill primarily dealt with Animal Plant Health Inspection Service's authority to block or regulate the importation or movement of a noxious weed and plant pest, and it also provides authority for inspection and enforcement of the regulations. Basically the bill focused on stopping the weeds at the border. Stopping the spread of noxious weeds requires a two pronged effort. First, we must prevent new non-native weed species from becoming established in the United States, which was the focus of the Plant Protection Act. Second, we must stop or slow the spread of the non- native weeds we already have, which is the focus of the Harmful Non- native Weed Control Act. I have been working with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, and the Nature Conservancy to develop the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act. This legislation will provide a mechanism to get funding to the local level where weeds can be fought in a collaborative way. Working together is what the entire initiative is about. Specifically, this bill establishes, in the Office of Secretary of the Interior, a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed management entities. The Secretary of the Interior appoints an Advisory Committee of ten individuals to make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual allocation to funds. The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, will allocate funds to States to provide funding to eligible weed management entities to carry out projects approved by States to control or eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private lands. Funds will be allocated based on several factors, including but not limited to: the seriousness of the problem in the State; the extent to which the federal funds will be used to leverage non-federal funds to address the problem; and the extent to which the State has already made progress in addressing the problems. The bill directs that the States use 25 percent of their allocation to make base payments and 75 percent for financial awards to eligible weed management entities for carrying out projects relating to the control or eradication of harmful, non-native weeds on public or private lands. To be eligible to obtain a base payment, a weed management entity must be established by local stakeholders for weed management or public education purposes, provide the State a description of its purpose and proposed projects, and fulfill any other requirements set by the State. Weed management entities are also eligible for financial awards--funds awarded by the State on a competitive basis to carry out projects which can not be funded within the base payment. Projects will be evaluated, giving equal consideration to economic and natural values, and selected for funding based on factors such as the seriousness of the problem, the likelihood that the project will address the problem, and how comprehensive the project's approach is to the harmful, non-native weed problem within the state. A 50 percent non-federal match is required to receive the funds. The Department of Agriculture in Idaho (ISDA) has developed a Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds through a collaborative effort involving private landowners, state and federal land managers, state and local governmental entities, and other interested parties. Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are the centerpiece of the strategic plan. CWMAs cross jurisdictional boundaries to bring together all landowners, land managers, and interested parties to identify and prioritize noxious weed strategies within the CWMA in a collaborative manner. The primary responsibilities of the ISDA are to provide coordination, administrative support, facilitation, and project cost- share funding for this collaborative effort. Idaho already has a record of working in a collaborative way on this issue--my legislation will build on the progress we have had, and establish the same formula for success in other states. As I have said before, non-native weeds are a serious problem on both public and private lands across the nation. They are particularly troublesome in the West where much of our land is entrusted to the management of the federal government. Like a ``slow burning wildfire,'' noxious weeds take land out of production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their livelihoods--including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others. I believe we must focus our efforts to rid our lands of these non- native weeds. Noxious weeds are not only a problem for farmers and ranchers, but a hazard to our environment, economy, and communities in Idaho, the West, and for the country as a whole. We must reclaim the rangeland for natural species. Noxious weeds do not recognize property boundaries, so if we want to win this war on weeds, we must be fighting at the federal, state, local, and individual levels. The Harmful Non- native Weed Control Act is an important step to ensure we are diligent in stopping the spread of these weeds. I am confident that if we work together at all levels of government and throughout our communities, we can protect our land, livelihood, and environment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there is some very important unfinished business from the last Congress that requires our early attention this year: renewing the adoption tax credit. As many of our colleagues know, this credit was enacted in 1996 to help families with the extraordinary costs of adoption. Forming a family through adoption is challenging for a number of reasons, but the financial burden puts it out of reach altogether for too many Americans. Legal fees, medical bills, travel, and other expenses can push the cost into the tens of thousands of dollars, over and above the normal cost of raising a child. Congress enacted the adoption tax credit to enable families to keep a little more of their own hard- earned dollars to use for these expenses, on a one-time basis. That tax credit has been very helpful to the families who have opened their homes and hearts to children in need. However, it is due to expire at the end of this year, along with another adoption-related tax provision that excludes employer-provided adoption benefits from income, for tax purposes. We cannot wait until the end of the year to renew these tax measures. Today, families are making decisions about whether they can afford to embark on the long journey to bring a child home through adoption. Today, they cannot count on those tax benefits being available. This Congress must move swiftly to reassure America's adoptive families that we will continue to support this modest assistance. That is why I am reintroducing the Hope For Children Act, which many of my colleagues will remember from the last Congress. I am delighted to be joined in this effort by Senator Mary Landrieu, who with me co- chairs the bicameral, nonpartisan Congressional Coalition on Adoption, as well as our colleagues, the Senator from Alaska Mr. Stevens, and the Senator from South Dakota Mr. Johnson. Our legislation will extend, increase, and simplify these important tax measures. Specifically, the Hope For Children Act would remove the current sunset on both the adoption tax credit and the exclusion for employer-provided adoption benefits. It would also increase the benefit and exclusion from $5,000 (or in the case of an adoption of a child with special needs, $6,000) to $10,000, and adjust them for inflation. It would lift the cap on income eligibility for receiving the full benefit of these tax measures from $75,000 gross income to $150,000. Also, the bill includes a provision that the Senate has passed more than once, liberalizing the tax credit for families adopting children with special needs. It would also make a similar adjustment in the exclusion as it relates to these families. Instead of being limited to the adoption expenses that the Internal Revenue Service decides are allowable, these families would be entitled to the full credit and exclusion. This change is necessary, because the financial challenges facing these families tend to fall outside or after the adoption process itself--for instance, they may include a wheelchair or special van for an adopted child with a physical disability, or home construction work to make it possible to adopt a sibling group, or counseling services for the family to cope with the extraordinary challenges of a child with special needs. It is important to remember that the costs involved in such adoptions are truly staggering. Even with the increases we want to provide through the Hope For Children Act, the adoption tax credit and exclusion only offer a boost, not a subsidy, to families who are willing to open their hearts and homes to a child with special needs. Mr. President, there are thousands and thousands of children in America who are waiting to be adopted. The adoption tax credit and exclusion are humane, measured, effective policies that truly help these children find safe, loving, permanent homes. Let's send a strong message of support to these children and their families by renewing these policies, through early passage of the Hope For Children Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Congressional Record.