Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me join in the bipartisan chorus of voices here on the floor this morning speaking about education reform and the package that President Bush will be sending us for our examination and consideration in the coming days. I say a chorus of bipartisan voices. Every Senator who serves in the Senate recognizes and is willing to dedicate time to the importance of education in our Nation, and especially to the improvement of our public educational system. Are there differences? Sure, there are differences. Historically, many of our colleagues simply wanted to send money, wanted to send it down from the Federal level, arguing that money was the problem; that if enough was sent, it would resolve the issue. A good many of us have said: Now, wait a moment. There has to be some control and some measurement, some evaluation of achievement. Or is the money being spent in the right way? Is enough control being given at the State and local level? Over the years, while the Federal Government has participated, it really has participated in a fairly limited way in the public education systems of our country. For every dollar that is spent on the ground in Idaho or Mississippi or Texas or Illinois, only about 7 or 8 cents of that dollar has been a Federal amount. What George Bush brings to us today is an attempt to recognize what most Americans have already recognized and spoke to him about in the campaign. That is that our educational system is in need of improvement and in need of reform. And probably out of opinions from that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle, there is a strong common ground to allow that kind of improvement and reform to go forward. For the last decade, the chorus has not necessarily been here, but it has been broad and across America where our citizens have been saying: Something is wrong; our children are not achieving at the levels they should. They are not safe in their schools. There is a level of disruption that does not produce the kind of environment where quality education can go forward. Hopefully, in the days to come, we will be able to craft a package, working with our President, to achieve what most Americans want for their children, recognizing, as all of us do, that in the absence of a high-quality public education system, the very character of our Nation, that must be perpetuated and brought forward from generation to generation, begins to lose. If that happens, America loses. In the end, we are a lesser nation because our children--our young people and our future leaders--are simply not as prepared as they must be to compete amongst themselves and to compete in the world as we know it. That is the issue George Bush challenges us with today. He speaks of putting money in for reading, but he also speaks of accountability. He turns that accountability back to the States and to the local communities and says: Prove your worth and we will help you. Good schools will improve and bad schools will work to improve, but for bad schools that will not recognize their failing, we will give parents and students the option to move elsewhere. Now, public education is a monopoly. It always has been one. Many of the educators within that system want to keep it just that way. They do not want to have to measure up against the private sector or another school down the road. If you live in that school district, you are required to attend that school. What George Bush is saying is, not necessarily. So you do not have to be a prisoner within the educational system. If the educational system is going to educate, then the parent and the student--if they are not getting the quality of education they want--ought to be allowed and ought to be given the means to move to another school where that quality education exists. Of course, there will also be consequences for success, not just for failure. If schools improve overall student achievement, they will be rewarded with special grants and bonuses. Other key components of this plan will go a long way towards improving our schools. These components include increases in federal funding for literacy programs, the strengthening of math and science education, and the cutting of bureaucracy to make it easier for schools to upgrade their technology. This bill would also help the States improve education by giving them more freedom in administering federal education dollars. Federal education programs will be consolidated, thus reducing the red tape and allowing more flexibility at the local level. President Bush's proposal also expands the amount of money that can be put into tax-free education savings accounts. Parents are a key component of any education reform, and President Bush realizes that without empowering them, little can be done. In short, the President's plan provides the right blend of parental empowerment, local flexibility, federal funding, and accountability. If enacted, this plan will go a long way towards giving every child in America a chance to truly succeed. There are a lot of issues to be dealt with in the coming days. A good deal of compromise is to be made. But I am extremely excited that our President, President Bush, is leading with this issue. Clearly, there is no question in our country it is a major issue, and a major issue of importance for all of us, but most importantly for the future of our country. Mr. President, other colleagues have come to the floor and wish to speak, and we are operating under a unanimous consent agreement. So let me, with that, conclude my remarks and, in so doing, say I am excited that we have the opportunity to work together on this issue and to prove to Americans that education is the No. 1 priority of the Congress.

Mr. CRAIG

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

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, and I send it to the desk. Mr. President, the bill I introduce is the Hydroelectric Licensing Process Improvement Act of 2001. As its title suggests, the purpose of the bill is to improve the process by which non-federal hydroelectric projects are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I introduced an identical bill early in the 106th Congress. Several hearings were held on the bill in both the Senate and House. I introduce this bill today with the full understanding that the bill may undergo some changes as a result of collaboration with my colleague Senator Bingaman and others on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. At the end of the last Congress, Senator Bingaman offered to work with me in a bipartisan fashion to successfully report this bill out of Committee in the 107th Congress. I enthusiastically look forward to working with him to ensure that this bill gets the necessary attention to move smoothly and with appropriate speed through the Committee process. Mr. President, hydropower represents ten percent of the energy produced in the United States, and approximately 85% of all renewable energy generation. This is a significant portion of our nation's electricity, produced without air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, and it is accomplished at relatively low cost. The Commission for many years since its creation in 1920, controlled our nation's water power potential with uncompromising authority. However, over the years, a number of environmental statutes, amendments to the Federal Power Act, Commission regulations, licensing and policy decisions, and several critical court decisions, has made the Commission's licensing process extremely costly, time consuming, and, at times, arbitrary. Indeed, the current Commission licensing program is burdened with mixed mandates and redundant bureaucracy and prone to gridlock and litigation. 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 we have agencies fighting agencies and issuing inconsistent demands. The consequent delays in processing hydropower applications result in significant business costs and lost capacity. For example, according to a September 1997 study of the U.S. Department of Energy, since 1987, of 52 peaking projects relicensed by the Commission, four projects increased capacity, and 48 decreased capacity. In simple terms, those 48 projects became less productive as a result of the relicensing process at the Commission than they were prior to relicensing. Ninety- two percent of the peaking projects since 1987 lost capacity. In addition, faced with the uncertainties currently plaguing the relicensing process, some existing licensees are contemplating abandonment of their projects. This is of concern to the nation because two-thirds of all non-federal hydropower capacity is up for relicensing in the next fifteen years. This concern has been exacerbated in the last several months by the catastrophic energy supply crisis experienced by California and the rest of the West. By the year 2010, 220 projects will be subject to the relicensing process. Publicly owned hydropower projects constitute nearly 50% of the total capacity that will be up for renewal. The problems resulting in lost capacity, coupled with the momentous changes occurring in the electricity industry and the increasing need for emission free sources of power, all underscore the need for Congressional action to reform hydroelectric licensing. Moreover, the loss of a hydropower project means more than the loss of clean, efficient, renewable electric power. Hydropower projects provide drinking water, flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, irrigation, transportation, environmental enhancement funding and recreation benefits. Also, due to its unique load-following capability, peaking capacity and voltage stability attributes, hydropower plays a critical role in maintaining our nation's reliable electric service. My bill will help remedy the inefficient and complex Commission licensing process by ensuring that federal agencies involved in the process act in a timely and accountable manner. My bill does not change or modify any existing environmental laws, nor remove regulatory authority from various agencies. It does not call for the repeal of mandatory conditioning authority of appropriate federal agencies. Rather, it requires participating agencies to consider, and be accountable for, the full effects of their actions before imposing mandatory conditions on a Commission issued license. It is clear to me and many of my colleagues here in the Senate that hydropower is at risk. Clearly, one of the most important tasks for energy policymakers in the 21st Century is to develop an energy strategy that will ensure an adequate supply of reasonably priced, reliable energy to all American consumers in an environmentally responsible manner. The relicensing of non-federal hydropower can and should continue be an important and viable element in this strategy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section- by-section analysis appear in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief. Others of our colleagues have come to the floor. The hour is late and snow is falling. We gather here today in the full recognition that elections have consequences. There is no question that the November election changed the character, the makeup of the Senate. We have heard now both of our leaders talk about the agonizing effort they have gone through for the last several weeks to understand the consequence in light of the rules of the Senate and the way we must govern in the coming months. I am not quite sure if we can yet determine whether the glass is half full or whether the glass is half empty, but we know that somewhere right about at the middle, it is divided, and that it is in that division we must work out our differences to govern. That is what our two leaders have attempted to do. The resolution before us this afternoon speaks to that line that we are attempting to draw and that we as Senators are attempting to understand. I could tell you what I believe the election meant, but I am not quite sure that my opinion is any more accurate than anyone else's. But I do know one thing that the American people will expect of us in the coming months. They will expect us to give a new President an opportunity to lead. They will expect us to allow a new President to form his Cabinet in the way he has chosen, for the purpose of developing that leadership and for the purpose of shaping his policies for us and the Nation, to evaluate and form those policies ultimately for us to be governed. We have a responsibility in the Senate. We are going to start hearings on those nominees to that new Cabinet in the very near future. I hope, in the atmosphere of bipartisanship, and the kind of cooperation we see here today, the hearings will be fair, the hearings will be probative, but, most importantly, that in the end it is not the choice of an obstructionist to deny a new President his opportunity to lead and, therefore, his opportunity to form a new Cabinet. That is part of what our leaders struggled over: How do we sift that out and create that kind of fairness in the process? Time will tell. And that is exactly what Leader Lott has just said. Some of us on our side are very hesitant at this moment. We have worked with the other side, but we have also seen an element of what we would call obstructionism over the course of the last year. But that was last year. Since that time, an election has passed. We are now in the business of shaping a new Congress, with a new administration, to accomplish new goals for the American people. I hope we can work cooperatively to accomplish that. Shall we live in interesting times? a Chinese proverb might say. I would say to whomever crafted that Chinese proverb, I have lived in enough interesting times. Two years ago at this time we were talking about the procedures of the Senate for trying the impeachment of a President--interesting times. Following the November election, our Constitution hung in the balance for 36 long days--interesting times, historic times. And now, in a very historic way, the Senate attempts to govern itself in a 50/50 representation. For this Senator, enough history. Now let's get on with leading and governing for the sake of the American people and for this great country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for a short time today. The Senate was expected to consider the final appropriations bill during today's session. However, because of changes in the House schedule, the Senate will not begin consideration of the final package until tomorrow morning pending its receipt from the House. It is hoped that the House can complete action shortly after noon tomorrow. Senators will be updated on the vote time throughout the day today. I think that probably covers the concerns of my colleagues, and I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, recently, I attended the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-6) at The Hague, in the Netherlands. I went to observe Undersecretary of State Frank Loy and the rest of the U.S. negotiating team confront the complex issues associated with the requirements of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The experience brought into clearer focus for me some disturbing themes that appear to be behind the intense international pressure brought to bear on the United States to reach agreement on some profound economic, social, and environmental issues. At the outset, let me make clear that I did not arrive at The Hague without first studying the climate issue. For several years now, I have closely followed the progress of the climate change debate. I have sought the input of nationally recognized scientists credentialed in the disciplines of atmospheric, ocean, and computer modeling sciences. I have reviewed scientific reports, most notably the document entitled Research Pathways for the Next Decade, prepared by scientists affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. In addition, I have traveled to institutions such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts and met with ocean scientists who are very involved in climate research. All of these scientists have, for many years, studied and disagreed on how much our planet is warming, and whether it was driven by natural causes or by carbon dioxide emissions from industry, and other human activities. Scientists from around the world have had legitimate disagreements on how drastic a problem global warming is likely to be in this century and beyond. The debate has been further complicated by politically motivated ``junk science'' predictions of ``imminent'' environmental catastrophes capitalizing on weather events that most scientists agree are not linked to current temperature increases. The emotional intensity of this debate cautioned many policymakers not to take sides early. However, as Republican Policy Committee Chairman, I felt compelled to address the many valid concerns expressed about this issue in a balanced way. This led me to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Hagel, and others, over a year ago, comprehensive legislation that I believed, and still believe, provides the framework for some responsible and immediate consensus action on this issue. A few days before leaving for The Hague, I met with the Director of the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and other scientists on the Board to discuss the status of the scientific research on climate change. Prior to that date, the NRC was reluctant to agree with earlier summary scientific assessments of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that humans were contributing to increasing temperatures recorded around the globe--the so-called ``anthropogenic effect.'' Indeed, at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing held just last Spring, Dr. Joe Friday, testifying on behalf of the NRC stated that the ``jury is still out'' on why global temperatures are rising. The NRC was clearly unable at that time to state on the record that it had detected clear evidence of an anthropogenic fingerprint on the warming trends of earth's climate. At our meeting a few weeks ago, the NRC scientists were less passionate in their refusal to acknowledge the ``anthropogenic effect.'' I took from our discussion that day that there was increasing evidence that land-use practices and human emissions of greenhouse gases were having some contributing effect to the increased land surface temperatures monitored around the globe. To be sure, the scientists did not suggest or imply that temperatures would reach dangerously high levels during the next 50 to 100 years. Indeed, the scientists offered their opinion that the rise in temperature would more likely be closer to 1.5 degrees rather than the 5 to 10 degree high range predicted for later this century by the IPCC. Moreover, the NRC scientists underscored the uncertain nature of the computer modeling results on which most, if not all, predictions depend. They cautioned against fully embracing any set of predictions because of the uncertain nature of input data and the ability of computers to fairly and adequately handle the many variables that are included in computer programs. They further noted the need for continued technological advancement in super computer capability. What was clear to me after that meeting was that the issue of human contributions to increasing temperatures was reaching some consensus within the National Academy of Sciences. However, it was also clear to me from my discussions with those scientists that many other important scientific issues concerning the extent of the human contribution to warming trends, the extent to which the earth will continue to warm, and perhaps, most important, the extent to which mankind can take actions that will effectively stop or slow climate change are far from settled and will likely take years to determine. Indeed, the consensus that is forming among scientists working on this issue for the National Research Council is that we need a plan to focus more on climate change ``adaptation'' rather than climate change ``mitigation.'' This thinking would have been considered radical a little over a year ago and today still may be anathema to many in the environmental community. Yet, a July, 2000, Atlantic Monthly article entitled ``Breaking the Global Warming Gridlock'' by Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke, Jr. boldly and intelligently addresses this issue and persuasively makes the case for new thinking on what many of us would agree is one of the most important issues for this new century. Instead of discussions at The Hague centering on ways to reach consensus on actions that would reduce vulnerability to climate change such as encouraging democracy, raising standards of living, and improving environmental quality in the developing world through the use of innovative American and other industrialized countries technology, many discussions were consumed by scathing anti-American rhetoric. Some non-governmental environmental organizations and some European Environmental Ministers were criticizing the United States for not wanting to surrender some of its sovereignty by allowing other nations to police American fuel use and economic expansion strategies. Many in the developing world were brazenly demanding billions of dollars in ``pay-offs'' for the perceived harm that climate change--in their opinion, brought about by American greed--was causing developing countries. Astonishingly, all of this pay-off money would be in addition to the large sums currently being sent to developing countries through AID and many other American taxpayer programs designed to help developing nations reach better standards of living. The motives of America's strongest critics at The Hague Climate Conference appeared to be nothing more than transparent efforts to have wholesale redistribution of wealth to the developing world and to maneuver our competitors in the global market place into stronger competitive positions. Many in the non-governmental environmental community appeared to be more interested in promoting non-growth and anti-population agendas than taking actions that would offer the best prospects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or helping vulnerable nations adapt to capricious climate variations. I believe America will responsibly move forward in addressing the climate change issue whether or not Kyoto is ever ratified by the Senate. We should not, and the Senate will not allow the international community or powerful non-governmental environmental organizations to force our nation to accept a deal that will be economically threatening or scientifically ineffective. Secretary Loy and his negotiating team at COP-6 should be commended for their hard work and steadfastness in demanding from the international community solid proposals that fully recognize both America's determination to defend its sovereignty and its unmatched ability through its technological prowess to help the world deal with any potential calamities as a consequence of climate change. Moreover, the United States won key concessions from international negotiators at Kyoto that now appear to be at serious risk. Indeed, European negotiators at The Hague, with strong pressure from some non- governmental environmental organizations, made aggressive attempts to rescind those concessions. The flexible mechanisms provision and the sinks provision were elements of the Protocol that were prominently displayed to Congress by the Clinton/Gore Administration when Congressional Oversight Committees questioned the costs associated with the Protocol. Each time the Administration responded to such queries, the Administration would point to the carbon sink and flexible mechanism provisions to rationalize its assessment that compliance with the Protocol would be inexpensive. Clearly, without those provisions, the Protocol's cost will be prohibitive and violate one of the critical tenets of Senate Resolution 98--the Byrd/Hagel Resolution--which passed the Senate 95-0 in 1997. I can only hope that the current Administration will do nothing to compromise these principles in the coming weeks. To do so would be irresponsible and unproductive. Clearly, it would be politically ineffective inasmuch as the Senate would not ratify such agreement. Meanwhile, as scientists continue to research, discover, and even disagree on the causes and effects of global warming, I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to aggressively establish a system of incentives that reduce the environmental impacts of human activity, while preserving the freedoms and quality of life that make the United States the greatest Nation on Earth.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the House is not in session because of the funeral of Congressman Julian Dixon. Many here in the Senate did not know the Congressman, but I did. I had the great opportunity to serve with him in the most difficult of circumstances. We served on the Ethics Committee together during the period in which Jim Wright was examined for what was believed to be, and what was later found to be, unethical activities for which he finally resigned. Julian Dixon was a fine American. Oh, yes, he was a partisan. But when it came to the responsibility of leadership, there was no question that his chairmanship of the Ethics Committee during that time was fair, equitable, and responsible. I must tell you that in working with him during those long hours and difficult times, I grew to respect him a great deal. I must say that we have lost a great public servant in the death of Congressman Julian Dixon. I will miss him. I think all of us will.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think I speak for all Senators on my side of the aisle and probably for all Members of the Senate when I say that last night we watched with great attention the speeches given by Vice President N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2001, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $393 per year or $197 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $4.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer Al Gore and the now President-elect George W. Bush. I think as Americans we were all honored by their statements last evening: A clear statement of vision and reconciliation on the part of the Vice President and, I have to imagine, the most difficult speech that gentleman has ever delivered in his life; at the same time, a speech from President-elect George W. Bush which I think demonstrated the full weight of understanding he has about his role as the President of our country--that he is President for all of the people. And that burden humbles him a great deal. We all look forward to working with him in the coming months and years as we continue to work in behalf of our country. Certainly the prayer delivered by our Chaplain this morning clearly speaks to the concerns we have had and the wounds that must be bound and, of course, the actions that will be taken in behalf of leading this country. I think all of us look forward to the opportunity of working with President George Bush in the coming days.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Katie Kirkham, a high school sophomore from Century High School in Pocatello, ID. Katie represented Idaho's horse program at the National 4-H Congress in Atlanta, Georgia, on November 24-28, 2000. She was one of twelve teens in the nation honored with the responsibility of introducing a guest speaker at the event. There are thousands of young people involved in 4-H in the state of Idaho. And as a former 4-H member myself, I take special pride in recognizing the 4-H program, which has been educating Idaho youth on agricultural issues for generations, and will continue to do so for generations to come. I congratulate Katie on her outstanding accomplishment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on November 11 of this year, we will commemorate the sacrifice made by veterans and all Americans during World War II by dedicating the National World War II Memorial. The Memorial is a tribute to the men and women who risked their lives for our freedom and democracy. Sixteen million men and women served our country during this war, and many more contributed on the home front. Each day, more veterans pass away, and it is imperative we remember the great effort they made, securing the liberties we enjoy in the United States of America. Hundreds of Americans from all sectors of our society joined the effort to show their appreciation to America's World War II generation by raising millions of dollars. The Memorial was almost completely funded by private contributions, and among the many who contributed to this effort were students from Eagle High School in Eagle, Idaho. In November of 1999, high school students Fi Southerland and Kate Bowen decided to raise $20,000 for the National World War II Memorial. These students were soon joined by many of the Eagle High students and staff. With the assistance and under the direction of their high school teacher, Gail Chumbley, they held various events to raise money. I am pleased to report that this group of outstanding young people and the many others involved in the project have not only met the goal of raising $20,000 but have actually surpassed it by seven thousand dollars. Those who participated in this effort expressed how the effort changed their perspective on the great sacrifice made by our War Veterans. The students said one of the most satisfying parts of this year-long project has been letters and stories they have received from people involved in WWII. One of the most interesting was from a man who was not a veteran, but born in Holland and lived through the war and now is a United States citizen. He told the students that as a child, he heard the allied bombers flying overhead at night on their way to Germany, his parents called the ``sound of freedom.'' Kate Bowen summed up the reasons for raising the funds. ``The effort is about paying respect to that generation. Look at what they did for us.'' We recognize, with gratitude, the difference World War II veterans made in our every day lives. I commend all those involved with this project for their dedication and hard work, and hope their interest and concern will inspire others. Other students and organizations involved in the project include Kristen Ediger, Sam Johnson, Karl Krohner, Hilary Case, Lacey Rammel-O'Brien, Katria Taylor, Amy Marcotte, Darcy Haney, David Sant, Tony Bergman, Jennifer Martinez, Chase Deobald, Cassie Southerland, Kiley Southerland, Kristen Clark, Lindsey Marshall, Robert Frazier, Josh Miller, Melissa McGrath, Catherine Sant, Bryan Jolly, Brandon Putzier, Melvin Delic, Jason Steik, Shaun Huntington, Deanne Jenkins, Tana Martin, Traci Mayhugh, Tysen Janak, Carolyn Michaud, Jimmy Hallyburton, Taylor Cooley, Cory Snethen, Brian Price, Elizabeth Pearson, Aimee McCauley, Dawn Leavitt, Matt Reines, Devan Satterly, Ashley Ellis, Craig Cahan, Justin Bodine, Jason Gates, Patrick Bulson, John Winder, Shyann Harris, Shannon Bruce, Michael Johnson, James Burdick, Edis Kajic, Merzine Ceric, Jason Kalk, Steve McClenny, Casey Spirk, Conrad Crisman, Paul Moore, Jason Lindquist, Steven Baker, Nathan Nichols, Katie Miller, Adam Brundy, Jason Peterson, Jeff Auchampach, Roy Brewer, Danny Edvalson, Larissa Martinson, Robbie Buck, Travis Barney, Nicola Miller, Ryan Griffiths, Bret Anderson, Diana Chong, Andrea Banks, Brad Smith, Dena Smith, Robert Frazier, Kia Black, Cathy Peterson, Heidi Webb, Jeff Collier, Kimber Crosgrove, Jennifer Pengelly, Ryan Small, Linda and Mike Bowen, Kacey Bowen, Kelly Bowen, Lili Gonzales, Lindsay Miller, Brandon Rapp, Clipper Net, Chapparal Elementary School, Amanda Vissotski, Amy Barnes, Eagle Middle School, McMillian Elementary, Bill and Wendy Southerland, Emerson and Patricia Smock, Bruce Gestrin, Eagle Albertons, Dick Bengoechea, Andrea Mahan, Lori Smock, Joanna Lee, Eagle Lions Club, Eagle Volunteer Fire Department, Eagle Chamber of Commerce, Chad Chumbley, Henni Keller, Pat O'Oloughlin and Kepa Zubizaretta.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Oregon. Both he and I have learned that when you try to change a law that is actually 92 years old, or adjust it a little bit, it is difficult to do. We were able to do that. Next year, there will be a good number of challenges on public lands and natural resource issues. I look forward to working with Senator Wyden.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as the Senator from Oregon is leaving the floor, I thank him for the cooperation and bipartisan work he and I were able to accomplish this year, through the Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee that I chair on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, by passing and yesterday having the President sign the community school district dependent bill that goes a long way toward stabilizing our schools and our county governances within the rural resource dependent communities of the western public land States.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I very recently came to the floor and expressed my grave concern about the reliability of affordable electricity. I am not alone in my concerns about this issue. Indeed, some of the loudest voices expressing similar concerns about energy prices are coming from not just Idaho but California, and specifically from my distinguished colleagues from California here in the Senate. By my comments today, I do not diminish or in any way cast doubt about the substantial hardships experienced by the ratepayers in California, particularly southern California. Indeed, I have great empathy for them, primarily because Pacific Northwest ratepayers are bracing for power shortages in the near future that will cause energy prices to soar and hurt large and small businesses alike and put some residential customers in danger, especially during the cold and hot periods of the year in our region of the Pacific Northwest. I share equal concerns with the citizens of California. We must confront the obvious facts facing all energy consumers today. There is an energy supply crisis in the United States. It is clear that the administration didn't see it coming, or at least ignored it. We in the Congress heard no alarms from the Department of Energy and were given not enough warning during the last 8 years that an energy supply crisis was about to threaten the electrical industry of our country. One of the very few pieces of energy legislation that was sent to Congress for review and passage was the administration's Comprehensive Electrical Competition Act in April 1999. This legislation was purported to result in $20 billion in savings a year to America's energy consumers. However, this legislation would not have precluded the crisis in California, the kind that Californians experienced this summer. Indeed, the legislation was full of mandates and rules that didn't offer any economic incentives or investments in new supplies. Moreover, the legislation included a renewable portfolio mandate that did not include cheap hydropower as a renewable. I know the Presiding Officer and I talked about it at that time--that all of a sudden we had an administration that was not going to include hydropower as a renewable. This renewable portfolio requirement would have made electricity more expensive and more scarce to the consumer. Part of the problem in California appears to be that it is unwilling to accept the tradeoff of high prices required by environmental regulations. Either the tough environmental standards that currently exist in California are an acceptable cost of energy consumption or California must make necessary environmental adjustments for more abundant supplies at a cheaper price. In addition, the administration must reexamine the use of the price caps that apparently have caused the supply problems in California. Mr. President, these are some of the reasons why the legislation failed to get the desired support in Congress from a majority of the Members which included many Democrats as well as Republicans. We recognized you simply can't just go out and say here is the energy, what it is going to cost, cap it at prices, and put all these environmental restrictions on it. It is going to ultimately get to the consumer and, boy, did it get to them in California this summer. Many of us were justifiably concerned about the impact such legislation would have on the current electrical supply network that supports the most reliable electric service found anywhere in the world. The administration did not adequately explain how the legislation would prevent energy supply problems from occurring if its legislation was passed--perhaps because it simply didn't have an adequate explanation or, if it knew the facts, it certainly wasn't willing to have them known publicly. Rather than wait for Federal direction on this issue, many States embarked on their own experiment with electrical restructuring. Some of those State programs appeared to be experiencing some success by giving to their electricity consumers choice of energy suppliers without jeopardizing reliable service. However, other States are experiencing great difficulties ensuring reliable service at affordable prices. And California happens to be one of those States. I am not interested in pointing blame for failures. I am interested in getting at the facts and understanding them as they relate to how they contributed to the failures so that objective assessments of future legislative proposals can be made to avoid what happened in California again in the coming years. Moreover, I want to ensure that the distinguished Members from California have all of the facts necessary to fully understand and appreciate the role the Bonneville Power Administration plays in the California markets. There were a lot of accusations made this summer about how the Bonneville Power Administration was handling its electrical supply. I think the facts are soon to be known and an entirely different story will emerge. I fully expect the facts to prove that the Bonneville Power Administration has not contributed to the energy cost crisis in California and that BPA can and will continue to play a positive role in bringing affordable surplus electricity from the Pacific Northwest to the California markets when that surplus is available. For these reasons, it is imperative to get relevant information about the California energy price crisis to Congress and the American people as soon as possible. It has come to my attention that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's investigative report on California's wholesale electricity markets is complete and ready for distribution. I was told just this morning that they have finally decided to release it. Indeed, in a news report yesterday, I read that a Democrat Commissioner from FERC stated that the FERC could not find evidence that California power rates were unjust and unreasonable. The Commissioner also told the reporters that there was no evidence of abuse by energy companies operating within the State. This is important information that must be shared and now will be shared with Congress and all electrical consumers. The news reports also say the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report would address sweeping structural changes in California's independent supply operator, or ISO, which controls the high voltage transmission grid, and the State's power transmission grid, and the State's power exchange, where power is bought and sold. It has come to my attention that the FERC report has been complete since October 16. There was some effort to keep it quiet, but it appears now to be breaking on the scene. This important information has been available and is now, as I say, beginning to come out. I do not understand why Congress should resist this kind of information. It ought to be made immediately available to Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the committee of jurisdiction for FERC issues and shared with members of the House Commerce Committee, where all of these issues will have to be considered. Indeed, one of the FERC Commissioners recognized its importance and talked about the issuance of this report. Commissioner Hebert captured these thoughts with some pretty eloquent words on October 19 when he said: Rather than wait for November 1 to release the findings of our staff's investigation-- Which they finally did. He felt it was important that they do it at this time. He said-- I urge the Chairman to release the completed report now. It seems that Commissioner is finally getting his way. Open government requires it; fairness does as well. And, most importantly, on this kind of information. The people of California should have as much time as possible to digest findings and consider the options presented. Justice Brandeis often remarked, ``Sunshine is the best disinfectant.'' Let the sun shine on our staff's report. The Commissioner is speaking of the FERC staff. It can only help heal the raw emotions rampant in the State of California. It is time Californians look at themselves and decide what went wrong in California because it wasn't as a result of the Bonneville Power Administration hoarding its power or choosing not to send power to California. It was California now finding out that some of the environmental restrictions they wanted in their marketplace are going to be very expensive restrictions indeed for which the average consumer of California will have to pay. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation designed to clarify the tax treatment of employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs). The Worker Investment Protection Act provides this needed clarification. Employee stock purchase plans are a common tool used by employers to allow rank-and-file employees to set aside part of their paychecks to purchase the company's stock. The tax code provides incentives for employees to participate in ESPPs to encourage employee ownership. This legislation is necessary because in selected cases around the country, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has begun to act contrary to almost 30 years of published policy, and is attempting to collect income taxes and payroll taxes on ESPPs. For three decades, the published IRS ruling position (Rev. Rul. 71-52) has been that transactions under qualified stock option plans do not give rise to income that is subject to employment taxes. In Notice 87-49, the IRS extended the principles of this ruling to incentive stock options (ISOs). In a series of private letter rulings, the IRS applied the same position to ESPP transactions, which are generally governed by the same Code provisions as qualified and incentive stock options. The IRS has periodically indicated that it may reconsider the positions in Rev. Rul. 71-52 and Notice 87-49, but no further official guidance has been forthcoming. Rev. Rul. 71-52 and Notice 87-49 remain the best statements of current law and represent the only publicly published IRS position on current law. Nevertheless, IRS agents have selectively begun seeking to collect retroactive assessments of employment taxes, including withholdings, from employers who reasonably relied on these rulings and did not subject transactions under ESPPs to such taxes. The IRS's actions in this area are inconsistent with long-standing published IRS positions. This legislation would clarify that any income arising from transactions under ISOs and ESPPs, either upon grant or exercise, or qualifying and disqualifying disposition, is not subject to employment taxes or federal income tax withholding. ESPPs are the primary vehicle through which rank and file workers purchase stock in their companies. However, additional tax liabilities on employees and high administrative costs for plan administration will discourage employers from offering these programs that encourage broad- based employee stock ownership. Imposing employment taxes on otherwise nontaxable transactions will weaken incentives for employees to participate. The taxes involved are very modest when compared with the compliance costs and the unfair burdens on rank-and-file workers generally. This legislation will clarify what is sensible tax policy regarding ESPPs. More important, it will empower workers during their working years because they will be both employees and owners of the company as well as additional providers of their own retirement security. Furthermore, it will thwart the arbitrary and selective IRS actions, contrary to all previously published Treasury and IRS policies. I am introducing the Worker Investment Protection Act in the closing days of the 106th Congress with the hope that the Secretary of the Treasury, Lawrence Summers, will clarify longstanding IRS policy, and therefore preclude the need for this legislation. If not, I intend to pursue this legislation aggressively during the next session of Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the Worker Investment Protection Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the attached letters from the American Electronic Association, Micron Technology, and the National Association of Manufacturers in support of my efforts regarding employee stock purchase plans be made a part of the Record, immediately following my remarks.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thought this time was an opportunity of which I could take advantage to talk about something we all experienced this morning when we awakened here on the east coast. That was the chill of fall in the air. I think most of us had failed to recognize that we were late into October because the weather has been so mild and so generally warm. But we are really at the threshold of winter, and as winter comes, so does cold weather. And as cold weather comes, the average American reaches to the thermostat on the wall of his or her home and begins to turn it up. This fall, as that experience occurs, something else is going to happen in America that will be very dramatic, and that will be the turning up of the heating bill because, whether it is electricity or oil for space heating, the cost of those commodities in the average American's household budget has increased dramatically. In fact, in the Northeast, where home heating oil for space heat is a major commodity, those costs will have better than doubled since last year and could go even higher this year as the amount of supplies for those needs continues to not increase at the rate of demand. Why has this happened? Why are we at the threshold of an energy crisis in this country that we have not experienced in a long, long while? In nearly every part of the energy consumer basket--be it electricity, or home heating oil, or automobile gasoline, or diesel for our truck transportation, or fuel for the great turbines of the jet engines that fly Americans across America--there is no surplus today. That is a historic fact. This country was built on the abundance of energy. Our successes in our economy have always been the result of having the necessary energy to accomplish what we wanted. It was always one of the least-cost items in that accumulation of costs that made up the price to the consumer of a product on the market shelf. That is no longer the case. For the next few moments, I would like to once again address, as have I and other Senators for the last year and a half, the energy crisis we are now into and why we are there. Largely, it gained our attention about a year ago when we became aware that the members of the OPEC countries were going to move the price of oil from about $10 a barrel to $28-$30 a barrel. It had been selling for around $10 in the world spot market, and it was beginning to increase because they were beginning to decrease their production. Admittedly, no one was making money at $10 a barrel. Whether it is oil of the Middle East or oil in Texas or Oklahoma or on the overthrust belt of the west in Colorado and Wyoming, oil is not profitable at $10 a barrel simply because of the cost of production and compliance, especially in this country, with environmental rules and regulations. Somewhere at $17 to $20 a barrel is where it begins to be profitable. So for a long time, for the last several years, we were operating on less-than-profitable oil for at least the producers. For the consumer, it was a bonus. I remember just a year ago, across the Potomac in Northern Virginia, I bought regular gasoline for 90 cents a gallon. Today, one is going to pay at least $1.60 to $1.75, maybe even more than that, depending on your location and the location of the particular service station. That is a dramatic increase. That is a 110-120 percent increase. So that 90-cent gas, while there was a bit of a price war going on out in Northern Virginia at the time, was still based on $10-a-barrel oil. We know that has changed. We saw it change. Now we see the Arab nations receiving anywhere from $28 to $30, $31, $32, $33 a barrel for their crude oil. That all translates into a much greater cost at the pump to the consumer, but it also translates into a variety of other things. As we know, the petrochemical industry of this country is involved in almost all we do and sometimes a lot of what we wear because of the byproducts of the petrochemical industry, be it plastics or nylon or a combination of consumer goods. Slowly but surely, the increased cost of those byproducts is beginning to roll across the American economy. The other evening I did a conference call in Idaho with a group of farmers. They happened to be sugar beet farmers and potato farmers. The price of potatoes is well below break even this year. It has been for 3 years. Many of those farmers will not make money again this year, and they are very frustrated. Some of them will lose their farms. It is also true in sugar beets, with the price of sugar at near an all-time low. What they were most concerned about was their energy costs. As we all know, agriculture is a large consumer of energy. It is an intensive industry. Those large tractors and trucks used in the process of farming all consume large quantities of energy. The pesticides, insecticides, herbicides are all hydrocarbon or petrochemical based. All of their costs have started going up. Fertilizer costs will nearly double this year as a direct result of energy costs because when you are dealing with phosphates and phosphate fertilizers, huge volumes of energy are used to transform those from the rock to the fertilizer product that ultimately goes to the ground that the farmer uses. All of those costs are going up, and all of them are based on one simple fact; that in this economy, the energy costs to the consumer have nearly doubled in just about a year. So the farmers, while their prices were at an all-time low, were talking to me about energy. What is this country going to do? What is this administration going to do. What is this Congress going to do about an energy policy that would ultimately begin to bring those prices down. They were dramatically concerned. When the Congress gets back in January and February, we are going to hear a hue and cry coming out of the Northeast in relation to the cost of space heat and home heating oil, even though we have tried to deal with that in short-term measures. But those are some of the circumstances in which we are involved. The consumer is still going to the pump, and they are still filling up their vehicles. In most instances, consumers are working. They all have good jobs at this time. We are at nearly full employment. Nobody has really stopped to factor in that over the course of a year, they are going to be paying more than $300, $400, sometimes $500 out of their household budget for their energy costs than they did a year ago. But it will be the single highest increase in relation to cost over a 12-month period of any one item the American consumer will buy this year. It will be their energy. Never in the history of this country has energy gone up that fast for that sustained period of time and affected all segments of the economy. Those are some of the realities we are facing. Let me, for a few moments, explore why it has all happened. We now import about 56 percent of our supply of crude oil. That has gone up very dramatically over the last few years. In 1975, when we established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we were 36-percent dependent on foreign oil. The political rhetoric at that time--I was not here; the Presiding Officer was not here--was loud and boisterous: Never again will America be dependent on foreign sources of oil; we will establish a Strategic Petroleum Reserve in case of a national or an international crisis. Never will we have to be held hostage to the attitudes or the political concerns of a small group of Arab nations known as OPEC. That was 1975 when we were 36-percent dependent. So we established SPR and we put hundreds of millions of barrels of oil in a salt dome down in Louisiana as a special reserve to be used in an international or national emergency where supply would be disrupted. Today, we are 58-percent dependent on foreign oil, not 36-percent dependent. I have run my 10 minutes and there are others here to speak. I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 more minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. We have not heard this administration in any way talk about the need to change things very much. Why is that the case? Why are we now at the threshold I have described? The large reason is that for the last 8 years, during a time when this dependency on foreign oil has skyrocketed, we have had no energy policy coming from the Clinton-Gore administration. In fact, in almost every instance, they have, by rule and regulation or by process slowed down production in our fundamental sources of energy, be it domestic crude production, down 14 percent over the last decade; be it any exploration because of new environmental regulations; the inability to get out on the land and explore, even though our oil companies have the highest environmental standards to protect the land and to protect the environment around any new discoveries and developments. Out in my State of Idaho and in the Pacific Northwest, this administration is talking about taking down four very large hydrodams. They believe that by doing so and turning the Snake and the Columbia Rivers back to a more natural flow, they could actually improve fisheries. Somebody says: It is only 5 percent of the supply. Well, 5 percent of the supply of that region from those four dams generates enough electricity for the entire city of Seattle, WA--again, another attitude as to why we are not producing this and solving this problem but simply getting more deeply into this problem. Well, there are a lot of other reasons, and my time is short. But as a result of all of those problems and no solution coming from the administration--well, they did have one solution. They sent Bill Richardson, the Secretary of Energy, to the Middle East, and he had in his briefcase a tin cup. He got it out and he held out his tin cup and he said to the Arab Emirate oil nations: Please fill up my cup; please turn your valves on. You see, we have no energy policy. You are our supplier. We are victim to your political and economic whims. That has been the energy policy of the Clinton administration. That is the only real thing they have attempted to do, other than the politically charged action to open the SPR and bring about 30 million barrels of oil out of there to somehow change the price and the supply. Of course, we have held several hearings on that and, no, that hasn't happened. But this year, I, Senator Frank Murkowski, Trent Lott, and many others introduced the National Energy Security Act of 2000, S. 2575. We brought it to the floor. It is a major, new effort to bring our dependency on foreign oil at or below 50 percent, to encourage and maximize utilization of alternative fuels and renewable energy and increased domestic supply of not only oil but gas production, because natural gas has better than doubled in price in less than a year. Yet this administration sits happily by, as if nothing were occurring, knowing very clearly, but not wanting to talk very loudly in this political season, that their energy policy will drive costs to the consuming public to a higher rate than ever in the history of our country. Their only real good argument is that they did it all in the name of the environment. In closing, let me talk about the environment we are about to experience. It is going to be a cold environment this winter. That is a normal environment then. When elderly people and poor people have to make choices this winter between food and medicine and heat, that is not a very good environment. We will do all we can here to supply them with alternative resources to hold down their heating bills, but there is one remaining fundamental fact about why they must make those choices in this environment. We have lived for 8 years without an energy policy coming from this administration, except one--the tin cup in the hand of Bill Richardson--and a policy that somehow the production of hydrocarbons in our country was environmentally damaging. I think most of us know that is no longer true today. So I thought as I awoke this morning and felt the cool in the air and turned up the thermostat on the wall, while I may be able to afford my heating bill this winter, I know a good many people won't be able to afford theirs. That is a tragedy in this country that should not have to happen--a country that has always been so wise to allow the marketplace to provide one of the great abundances that we have always had that has set our Nation apart from all others, in our ability to produce and succeed, and that was an abundant supply of energy. In 8 short years, that abundant supply has dwindled to a point where we really have no surpluses at all today. The average demand for growth in energy goes up 1.4 percent in our country on an annualized basis, and we have only increased production by 0.4 percent in the last 8 years--in all segments of energy. That tells you one thing very clearly. Somebody has failed along the way, and I must tell you, serving on the Energy Committee and studying and examining this issue very thoroughly over the last several years, I know who has failed. It is the Clinton-Gore administration. They failed to recognize the reality of the marketplace, the reality of the world production supply, and disallowing us from producing our way out of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. I see no objection to that. I think we are here purely dependent on the House's ability to act as quickly as they can. When it arrives at the desk, my guess is there is going to be a large number on our side who would wish the same consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business until 10 a.m. and the time be divided in the usual form.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on a continuing resolution that funds Government through tomorrow. I understand that the House will be voting on that resolution at approximately 10 or 10:30. However, it was our hope that we would have the Senate vote on the joint resolution immediately this morning. We will be unable to reach an agreement to allow that to occur earlier. Therefore, the Senate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we had put the continuing resolution on the desk hoping we could get agreement with the other side to move immediately to accommodate Senators' schedules. That is not going to happen. As I have said, we will wait for the House to vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time briefly.