Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, one of my top priorities this Congress has been to improve the process by which our Nation's non-federal hydroelectric projects are relicensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Over the next 15 years, over half of all non-federal hydroelectric capacity (nearly 29,000 MW of power) must go through a relicensing process that takes too long and results in a significant loss of domestic hydropower generation. Oversight and legislative hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this Congress have established a solid record of the problem and the need for a legislative solution. I want to commend the Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Senator Smith, for his dedication to this issue and for working with me to seek a bipartisan, legislative solution to the licensing problem. I look forward to working with all my colleagues to pass this legislation in the next Congress.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill. First I would like to thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Kohl for the hard work they have put into the Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is a challenging process, and they have done an excellent job balancing competing interests. While I don't agree with everything in this bill, I believe this bill provides vital funding for several programs in my state and across the nation. This conference report includes much needed emergency spending to deal with the fires and drought in the West. As you all know, the West was hit hard this year by wild fires. In Idaho alone over 1.2 million acres were burned. I visited a ranch where, within a couple of hours time period, a fire had destroyed the rancher's business. Of this rancher's 800 head of cattle, close to 600 were killed or had to be destroyed because they were so badly burned. I think this is an emergency, and it is only right that Congress provide funding to assist producers who have been impacted by such a natural disaster. That is why I support the livestock indemnity payments included in this conference report. Ranchers that were lucky enough to get their cattle out of the fires path are now searching for feed for their cattle and are working to rehabilitate the pastures that were destroyed. This conference report helps them by providing livestock feed assistance, as well as Emergency Conservation, Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations and Pasture Recovery Program funding to help defray the costs of rehabilitating the pasture lands. I also support this. However, I do not believe that all of the spending called emergency in the conference report is really emergency. I am disappointed to see the size of the emergency spending as well as some of the authorizing contained in this conference report. This and some of the other bills represent a bad omen for the future. We need to have a realistic budget resolution every year and we need to enforce it. We need fiscal discipline to maintain an adequate surplus. We will need that surplus to protect and modernize Social Security, to save and reform Medicare, to meet high priorities we know will be there in defense and other areas, and to provide some relief to the most heavily taxed generation in American history. The bills we are considering at the end of session do not represent a disaster but they are a bad start in terms of planning for our future. I am not pointing fingers. I think our current process is not responding well to the new idea of surpluses. But we need to start now to do a better job. I am also concerned with some of the legislative provisions contained in this bill. I do not support a rollback of welfare reform, and I am concerned that some of the provisions contained in this conference report are a start at doing just that. While I am strongly opposed to these provisions, this bill contains many things that benefit my state as well as help that is sorely needed. On balance, I have been forced to conclude that I cannot, in good conscious vote against this bill even though I do not agree with each and every item included in this conference report. I hope the Senate passes this bill today and the President signs it into law. However, I hope that we will reform the process so next year we are not in the same situation we find ourselves in today.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Kohl for the hard work they have put into the Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is a challenging process, and they have done an excellent job balancing competing interests within the confines of a balanced budget. I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee regarding the funding for the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP) and state rural development councils (SRDCs). As you may be aware, NRDP and SRDCs have always depended on allocations of discretionary funds from USDA and four other federal agencies. They have never had a stable and predictable source of funds. Earlier this year, the Committee on Agriculture's Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, which I chair, held an oversight hearing on the operations and accomplishments of the NRDP and SRDCs. The Subcommittee heard from a number of witnesses, including officials of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, and Health & Human Services, state agencies, and private sector representatives. The hearing established the need for some legislative foundation and consistent funding. I was recently joined by 27 Senators in introducing legislation to accomplish this. The legislation formally recognizes the existence and operations of the Partnership, the National Rural Development Council (NRDP) and SRDCs. In addition, the legislation gives specific responsibilities to each component of the Partnership and authorizes it to receive Federal appropriations. This legislation was not passed in time for the FY2001 appropriations process, so funding is necessary to keep the program viable until the legislation can be passed. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there is no funding earmarked or specified within the Agriculture Appropriations conference report for this program. However, the Secretary has made discretionary funds available for this program in the past and it is my hope he would continue to do so, and that we can encourage him in this regard, until freestanding legislation can be passed.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation designed to correct a fundamental flaw within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) dispute resolution mechanism, known as Chapter 19. As many of my colleagues are aware, Chapter 19 has revealed itself to be unacceptable in its current form. The Integrity of the U.S. Courts Act, that I introduce today with my colleague Mr. Baucus, is necessary to make certain bilateral dispute resolution decisions from the NAFTA are made pursuant to U.S. trade laws. At present, antidumping and countervailing duty determinations made by NAFTA members are appealed to ad hoc panels of private individuals, instead of impartial courts created under national constitutions. These panels are supposed to apply the same standard of review as a U.S. court in order to determine whether a decision is supported by substantial evidence on the agency record, and is otherwise in accordance with the law. This standard requires that the agency's factual findings and legal interpretations be given significant deference. Unfortunately, in spite of the panels's mandate, they all too often depart from their directive and fail to ensure that the correct standard of review is applied. The Integrity of the U.S. Courts Act would permit any party to a NAFTA dispute involving a U.S. agency decision to remove appellate jurisdiction from the Extraordinary Challenge Committees (ECC) to the U.S. Court of International Trade. Doing so would resolve some of the constitutional issues raised by the Chapter 19 system, expedite resolution of cases, and ensure conformity with U.S. law. The infirmities of Chapter 19 are real, and have been problematic from the beginning. The Justice Department, the Senate Finance Committee, and other authorities are on record of having expressed serious concern about giving private panelists--sometimes a majority of whom are foreign nationals--the authority to issue decisions about U.S. domestic law that have the binding force of law. These appointed panelists, coming from different legal and cultural disciplines and serving on an ad hoc basis, do not necessarily have the interest that unbiased U.S. courts have in maintaining the efficacy of the laws, as Congress wrote them. One of the most egregious examples of the flaws of Chapter 19 is reflected in a case from early in this process, reviewing a countervailing duty finding that Canadian lumber imports benefits from enormous subsidies. Three Canadian panelists outvoted two leading U.S. legal experts to eliminate the countervailing duty based on patently erroneous interpretations of U.S. law--interpretations that Congress had expressly rejected only months before. Two of the Canadian panelists served despite undisclosed conflicts of interest. The matter was then argued before a Chapter 19 appeals committee, and the two committee members outvoted the one U.S. member to once again insulate the Canadian subsidies from U.S. law. The U.S. committee member was Malcolm Wilkey, the former Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, and one of the United States' most distinguished jurists. In his opinion, Judge Wilkey wrote that the lumber panel decision ``may violate more principles of appellate review of agency action than any opinion by a reviewing body which I have ever read.'' Judge Wilkey and former Judge Charles Renfrew (Also a chapter 19 appeals committee member) have since expressed serious constitutional reservations about the system. While some have claimed that Chapter 19 decides many cases well, its inability to resolve appropriately large disputes, and its constitutional infirmity, demand a remedy. It is clear that the time is long past due to remedy Chapter 19. From the outset, the NAFTA agreement contemplated that given the sensitive and unusual subject matter, signatories might have to alter their obligations under Chapter 19. The Integrity of the U.S. Courts Act is a reasonable solution to a serious problem. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Baucus and me in our effort to fix this problem that is unfairly harming American industry, and more important, the U.S. Constitution. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of my subcommittee for yielding. I say to the Senator from California, her amendment is a perfect example of no good deed goes unpunished. I say that to the Senator from California for this very simple reason. This language has been worked out with all of the parties, and all of the staffs, with the administration, and with the EPA. While they do not like it, they understand their science, and where they are does not justify, at this time, the kind of regulation they are attempting to bring down. From the State of the Senator from California, let me read from the Indian Wells Valley Water District. This is a water district of 10 to 12 wells, wells that, meeting the current standard proposed by EPA, would cost this water district $1 million per year--a 60- to 70-percent cost increase in their operations. What happens when Government goes silly or crazy based on science they have not substantiated, in highly mineralized areas, where arsenic is present in water supplies, is that they drive up costs, and ultimately they collapse these little water districts and everybody goes out and drills their own wells to supply their own household water and then an even greater problem exists. We are talking about cost per speculative cancer case--cost per speculative cancer case. If the amendment of the Senator from California prevails, that cost per speculative cancer case goes to $5 million per speculative case. I do not think that is good policy. I know the science isn't there yet to justify it because the word ``speculative'' is the word EPA uses in suggesting these dramatic reductions in arsenic levels. I do not want to destroy rural water systems. Neither does this subcommittee. My colleague from Idaho spoke very clearly about the real live impact if this amendment were to prevail. Across this country, small independent water districts cannot nor could not comply without a cost of several hundred dollars more per month added to the cost of a water bill. This is not good policy. I do not even think it is good politics. Let me repeat: No good deed will go unpunished according to this amendment because we have been working collectively together to solve this problem, recognizing the phenomenal importance of the water quality to all citizens in this country. Energy and Water, as an authorizing committee, has acted responsibly. While the ranking member might suggest that staff or they were not consulted, that is simply not true. They were thoroughly involved and consulted on this issue. This is a compromise. It does not shut down the process, as has clearly been spoken to by my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo. So I hope the Senate will recognize that. Let us not rush to judgment, nor let us not get into the speculative business of driving up costs of water and, therefore, allowing people to go out and drill their own wells and even create a more dangerous water structure for small rural communities.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this Congress has taken a historic step to advance the process of self-determination of the American citizens of Puerto Rico by approving an appropriation of $2.5 million as requested by the President for a grant to the Elections Commission of Puerto Rico to be used for voter education and a choice among the island's future status options. As an advocate of that process and the need to resolve the island's political status after 102 years, I am pleased that we have acted. This is historic because it represents the first authorization from Congress for the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to choose the ultimate political status for their island. Presidents since Truman have been seeking such an authorization and each house has passed similar language in the past, but the same language has never passed both houses and been enacted into law. Our approval of this appropriation should be read as Congress' determination to resolve the century-long question of the island's ultimate status and let Puerto Rican Americans choose a fully democratic governing arrangement if they wish to replace the current territorial status. By adopting this provision as part of the unanticipated needs account of the Office of the President, it is Congress' intention that its support for a future vote in Puerto Rico be coordinated with the Administration's efforts to provide realistic options to be included on the ballot in the island's next referendum. In recent months the President has brought Puerto Rico's major political parties together in an unprecedented effort to define the available political status options. Our approval of the $2.5 million request evidences our expectation that the White House will provide realist options upon which to base a future status referendum. It can only responsibly allocate the funds for the consideration of options that are realistic. Mr. President, the ultimate resolution of Puerto Rico's political status will require that Congress and the American citizens of Puerto Rico work together to make a choice based on clearly defined status options that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The action we have taken is a major contribution towards that goal.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a couple of moments on an issue that I know is important to many of us and has been addressed by both myself and the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who has now joined us on the floor, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska. Last night, the Vice President stated his belief that global warming is caused by fossil fuel use. The Senator from Alaska and I have both introduced legislation to deal with the question of climate change and global warming. We have looked at this issue extensively over the last several years, and through the eyes of the committee by a resolution, expressed on the floor of the Senate, as it related to the Kyoto Protocol. With all of that, the Vice President said one thing last night. Governor Bush said he was not certain that climate change was a direct result of fossil fuel use. In fact, he said, science would govern environmental decisionmaking in his administration, and he did not believe that science had yet fully resolved that fossil fuel use and the creation of greenhouse gases was, in fact, creating climate change. I happen to agree with the Vice President. I say that because the scientists we have had before us may generally agree that our globe is gaining some heat, with some temperature change, but they do not yet agree that fossil fuel usage and the aftereffects, the greenhouse gases, are in fact the sole cause or are they causing climate change? Which opinion is more supported by the scientists themselves? On Monday, the Washington Post reported, in unusual detail, a new theory of global warming that is being advanced by scientists from Denmark to UCLA. It goes like this: First of all, they say, charged particles from space, better known as cosmic rays, cause cloud formation by changing atmospheric molecules with neutral charges into charged ions. The charged ions cluster, forming dense, low clouds. Now, this may sound like a scientific lecture, but this was the kind of detail that the Washington Post was giving in this article. They said, secondly, the Sun's magnetic field deflects much of the cosmic rays away from the Earth, reducing their ability to trigger cloud formation. With less cloud cover to shade the Earth, the Earth gets warmer. That seems like pretty reasonable logic, doesn't it? It turns out that satellite data over the last 20 years reveal an uncanny correlation between changes in the Sun's magnetic field and cloud cover. Meanwhile, Greenland ice-cores show that cosmic rays have declined over the past century. James Hensen of NASA, once a leading proponent of the human cause theory that the Vice President embraces to the exclusion of all others, now acknowledges in the Post that the Sun has probably been a significant contributor in past climate change. But Hensen would still like to see some convincing evidence. Hensen, by the way, has also published recent work suggesting that methane gases, many of which are emitted naturally, may be as large a contributor to climate change as CO2. How can we find out what is right? Here is what the Post reports: A consortium of more than fifty scientists have petitioned CERN, the European particle physics facility in Geneva, to conduct an experiment that could help settle this theory, this argument, this general issue, as reported by the Washington Post. The researchers want to use one of CERN's particle beams as a source of artificial cosmic rays that would strike a ``cloud chamber'' containing the equivalent of air in the lower atmosphere. If there is a clear link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, the experience should reveal it. The scientists proposing the experiment say: If this link is confirmed, the consequent global warming could be comparable to that presently attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. In other words, what the scientists are saying is, if this theory and this test were proven accurate, then cosmic rays and their influence in the atmosphere and the formation of clouds could have equal or greater influence over the Earth's atmosphere and climate change or global warming. How can we in the Senate use this information? If this experiment indicates that changes in solar magnetic fields account for all of the detected warming, then burning fossil fuel might account for none of it. Interrupting our economic growth by arbitrarily curtailing energy use either by taxing it or regulating it could be a far costlier experiment than the one these scientists have proposed at CERN. And because the human cause/ effect is so weak and so few countries are likely to join our self- destructive experiment, useful scientific results may never materialize. Let's do the real science, and do it now. In other words, I believe Gov. George Bush was right last night when he said, I believe there is a field of science we ought to understand and err on before we send this country down the road. He said his administration would make decisions on climate change based on science, not the politics or the popularity of the politics of the day. Let's make science drive the issue. Science has to drive public policy in this area, not vice versa. We dare not let public policy drive science. Meanwhile, let us hold off on dangerous experiments such as Kyoto that place our economy at risk in an attempt to prove one man right in the face of so much doubt. Truly, the kind of taxation the Vice President proposes and proposed but wouldn't own up to last night could certainly turn our economy into a recession and disadvantage our producers against other producers around the world. In other words, what the Washington Post reported in great detail in an article well over a half a page long, on Monday, was exactly what Governor Bush was saying last night. Mr. Vice President, the jury is still out. And the jury is scientists all over the world who have not yet confirmed, nor do they agree, that fossil fuels are the sole cause of a climate growing warmer. Let's err on the side of science and not politics as we make these decisions.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner and Senator Levin for the fine work they have done on critical issues before us and, of course, on the DOD authorization bill.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the DOD authorization conference report following the consideration and vote on H.R. 4516 on Thursday; that the conference report be considered as having been read and debated under the following agreement: 2 hours under the control of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee; 2\1/2\ hours under the control of Senator Levin; 1 hour under the control of Senator Gramm; 30 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone; that following the debate just outlined, Senator Bob Kerrey be recognized to make a point of order, and that the motion to waive the Budget Act be limited to 2 hours equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time on the motion to waive, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion and, if waived, a vote occur immediately on adoption of the conference report, without any intervening action, motion, or debate.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Environment and Public Works Committee's substitute to H.R. 3671, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000. Chairman Young and others did a tremendous amount of investigative and legislative work to get us to this point, and I want to thank them for all of their efforts. Their original bill passed the House with tremendous bi-partisan approval, garnering just two ``no'' votes. Senator Crapo and I took the House bill and strengthened it by providing a sensible level for grants for projects that affect more than one state and strengthening the provision to ensure states use a reasonable portion of the Pittman-Robertson money to provide hunter education programs. It was introduced as S. 2609 and garnered 14 cosponsors. Senators Smith, Crapo, Baucus, and Boxer worked hard on Senate legislation that everyone can agree on. I appreciate their dedication to that work, and we have produced an excellent product that will bring accountability to a program that represents one-third of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's budget, ensure the hunting and fishing community that the money they pay in excise taxes is being used for its intended purpose, and that the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs will continue to be this nation's premier wildlife and fisheries conservation programs. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this substitute, and I encourage the President of the United States to sign this important piece of legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chairman for this clarification. great falls historic district, paterson, new jersey

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Forest Service has historically supported competition in the supply of fire retardants through the inclusion of a viability clause in its bids. For the first time, the upcoming 2001 bid process may be conducted by sealed bid. It is unclear whether viability will be a consideration. This is a critical issue in a fire season like the one we just experienced. Would you agree that the U.S. Forest Service should support competition in the supply of aerially applied fire retardants?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee on an issue that affects the Forest Service and forest fire fighting in the West.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the U.S. Forest Service has announced its intention to move to gum thickened/sodium ferrocyanide aerially applied fire retardants in the 2004 bid process. The Service is to be commended for this initiative that seeks a more effective and environmentally friendly means to address the wildfires with which we have become so painfully accustomed in the West. Indeed, the Forest Service's own research shows that gum thickened retardants are 25-40 percent more effective than un-thickened retardants. The criteria called for in 2004, though, can be met today. Is it the Committee's view that the U.S. Forest Service should be striving for a more environmentally friendly product and should use such a product as soon as possible?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the after-effects of wildfires are devastating to the landscape. Mother Nature has a way of bringing life back to the land when all appears lost. However, even Mother Nature cannot erase for years the stains on the lands caused by some aerially applied fire retardants. This is especially of concern where historical and archeological resources, national parks, wilderness areas and urban/wilderness areas are concerned. Would you agree that U.S. Forest Service should preserve the option for local foresters to use less staining fugitive retardants where, in their judgment, it is warranted?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Conrad to introduce the ``National Rural Development Partnership Act of 2000''--a bill to codify the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP or the Partnership) and provide a funding source for the program. I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Breaux, Burns, Crapo, Daschle, Enzi, Gorton, Gramm, Grams, Gregg, Harkin, Hutchison, Jeffords, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey, Leahy, Lugar, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Bob Smith, Thomas, and Wellstone are joining us as original cosponsors. The Partnership was established under the Bush Administration in 1990, by Executive Order 12720. Although the Partnership has existed for ten years, it has never been formally authorized by Congress. The current basis for the existence of the Partnership is found in the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 and the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980. In addition, the Conference Committee Report on the 1996 federal Farm Bill created specific responsibilities and expectations for the Partnership and state rural development councils (SRDCs). The Partnership is a nonpartisan interagency working group whose mission is to ``contribute to the vitality of the Nation by strengthening the ability of all rural Americans to participate in determining their futures.'' The NRDP and SRDCs do something no other entities do: facilitate collaboration among federal agencies and between federal agencies and state, local, and tribal governments and the private and non-profit sectors to increase coordination of programs and services to rural areas. When successful, these efforts result in more efficient use of limited rural development resources and actually add value to the efforts and dollars of others. On March 8, 2000, the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, which I chair, held an oversight hearing on the operation and accomplishments of the NRDP and SRDCs. The Subcommittee heard from a number of witnesses, including officials of the US Departments of Agriculture, Transportation and Health & Human Services, state agencies, and private sector representatives. The hearing established the need for some legislative foundation and consistent funding. The legislation we are introducing accomplishes this. This legislation formally recognizes the existence and operations of the Partnership, the National Rural Development Council (NRDC), and SRDCs. In addition, the legislation gives specific responsibilities to each component of the Partnership and authorizes it to receive Congressional appropriations. Specifically, the bill formally establishes the NRDP and indicates it is composed of the NRDC and SRDCs. NRDP is established for empowering and building the capacity of rural communities, encouraging participation in flexible and innovative methods of addressing the challenges of rural areas, and encouraging all those involved in the Partnership to be fully engaged and to share equally in decision making. This legislation also identifies the role of the federal government in the Partnership as being that of partner, coach, and facilitator. Federal agencies are called upon to designate senior-level officials to participate in the NRDC and to encourage field staff to participate in SRDCs. Federal agencies are also authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with, and to provide grants and other assistance to, state rural development councils, regardless of the form of legal organization of a state rural development council. The composition of the NRDC is specified as being one representative from each federal agency with rural responsibilities, and governmental and non-governmental for-profit and non-profit organizations that elect to participate in the NRDC. The legislation outlines the duties of the Council as being to provide support to SRDCs; facilitate coordination among federal agencies and between the federal, state, local and tribal governments and private organizations; enhance the effectiveness, responsiveness, and delivery of federal government programs; gather and provide to federal agencies information about the impact of government programs on rural areas; review and comment on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation; provide technical assistance to SRDCs; and develop strategies for eliminating administrative and regulatory impediments. Federal agencies do have the ability to opt out of participation in the Council, but only if they can show how they can more effectively serve rural areas without participating in the Partnership and Council. This legislation provides that states may participate in the Partnership by entering into a memorandum of understanding with USDA to establish an SRDC. SRDCs are required to operate in a nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory manner and to reflect the diversity of the states within which they are organized. The duties of the SRDCs are to facilitate collaboration among government agencies at all levels and the private and non-profit sectors; to enhance the effectiveness, responsiveness, and delivery of federal and state government programs; to gather information about rural areas in its state and share it with the NRDC and other entities; to monitor and report on policies and programs that address, or fail to address, the needs of rural areas; to facilitate the formulation of needs assessments for rural areas and participate in the development of the criteria for the distribution of federal funds to rural areas; to provide comments to the NRDC and others on policies, regulations, and proposed legislation; assist the NRDC in developing strategies for reducing or eliminating impediments; to hire an executive director and support staff; and to fundraise. As I have stated before, this legislation authorizes the Partnership to receive appropriations as well as authorizing and encouraging federal agencies to make grants and provide other forms of assistance to the Partnership and authorizing the Partnership to accept private contributions. The SRDCs are required to provide at least a 25 percent match for funds it receives as a result of its cooperative agreement with the federal government. As you know, too many parts of rural America have not shared in the boom that has brought great prosperity to urban America. We need to do more to ensure that rural citizens will have opportunities similar to those enjoyed by urban areas. To do so, we do not necessarily need new government programs. Instead, we must do a better job of coordinating the many programs available for USDA and other federal agencies that can benefit rural communities. With the passage of this legislation, the NRDP and SRDCs will be better situated to provide that much needed coordination. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my attention was drawn this morning to an article in the Washington Times where our Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, defends energy policy by saying something that I found fascinating, to the point of absurdity. He says, ``We are not in an energy crisis.'' I am not quite sure how Mr. Richardson defines ``crisis,'' but I do know Mr. Richardson has recognized, at least for 12 months, a problem. Am I to understand that the reason for the absence of an energy policy in the Clinton administration is that we recognize a problem, but we are not going to do anything about it until it becomes a crisis? Home heating oil last year, in the Northeast, began at 80 cents to 90 cents a gallon. It went to nearly $2 before that season was over. It was contracted this summer at $1.19, and it is now selling at $1.40. I call that a crisis if I am low income and I want a warm home this winter. I call it a crisis if I want to travel cross-country and I can't afford to fill my gas tank. I call it a crisis if I am a trucker and I can't up my contracts to absorb my fuel or energy costs and I must turn my truck back in, as thousands are now doing--turning their trucks back in on the lease programs under which they acquired them when they planned to move the commerce of America across this country. Mr. Secretary, earlier this year, you flew numerous times to the Middle East with a tin cup in hand, begging the sheiks of the OPEC nations to turn the valve on just a little bit and let out a little more oil, hopefully dropping the price of crude and therefore lowering the cost at the pump. For a moment in time it worked. Then the price started ratcheting up as the markets began to understand that what had happened was pretty much artificial and pretty much rhetorical in nature and that, in fact, the supplies had not increased to offset the demand. While all of that was going on, underneath the surface of this issue were a few basic facts. We have lost over 30 refineries in the last decade because they couldn't afford to comply with the Clean Air Act; they couldn't retrofit in a profitable way. They were not given tax credits and other tools because it was ``big oil'' and you dare not cause them any benefits that might ultimately make it to the marketplace so the consumer could ultimately benefit. Those refineries went down. Here we are at a time when the price of crude oil peaked and the Vice President ran to the President and said please release SPR, and that has been done, or at least it is now being organized to be done, and it may lower prices. Yet that was a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was destined to be used only for a crisis. And the Secretary of Energy says no crisis. He himself said yesterday before the National Press Club there is no energy crisis in this country. But there was a crisis last week and the President agreed to release the oil out of SPR. I don't get it. I do not think I am that ignorant. I serve on the Energy Committee. We reviewed this. We have argued for a decade that there is a problem in the making, but this administration will not put down a policy, even though they see a problem, unless the problem becomes a crisis. But now there is not a crisis, so why are we releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which was designed not only for a crisis but for a national emergency, one that was inflicted upon us by a reduction or a stoppage of the flow of foreign crude coming into our economy that might put our economy at risk. The Secretary says we have a short-term problem and we will work it out in time. Mr. Secretary, what does ``working it out'' mean? Have you proffered or proposed a major energy policy before the Congress of the United States? No, you have not. Have you suggested an increase in production of domestic resources so we could lower our dependency on foreign oil? No, you have not, Mr. Secretary. So the American public ought to be asking of this administration, the Vice President, the President, and the Secretary of Energy: Mr. Secretary, Mr. President, and Mr. Vice President, if there is no crisis, then why are you tapping the very reserves that we have set aside for a time of crisis? Somehow it doesn't fit. There were political allegations 3 or 4 weeks ago when the Vice President was asking the President to release the petroleum reserve. He was saying there was a crisis, or a near crisis. That got done. And yesterday, In remarks before the National Press Club, [Secretary] Richardson said the ``political campaign'' was behind Gore's accusations against [big] oil companies and that a surge in demand for oil in the United States and abroad is the real reason gasoline, heating-oil and natural-gas prices have soared this year. ``We are not in an energy crisis.'' Mr. Secretary, if you are traveling or if you are not wealthy and you have to pick up the 100 percent increased cost in your energy bills and your heating bills, I am going to tell you that is a crisis. But my guess is, it is typical of this administration, a problem is a problem until there is a crisis, and then you find a solution; 8 years without a solution to this problem spells crisis. I am sorry, Mr. Secretary, but your rhetoric doesn't fit the occasion, nor does it rectify the problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for no more than 10 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate two Idaho athletes who have made America proud in the 2000 Olympic Games. Stacy Dragila from Pocatello, Idaho soared to the top of her sport, bringing home the gold medal. She pole vaulted fifteen feet, one inch in Sydney, Australia on September 25th. Stacy deserves recognition because she is more than an athlete. She gives back to her sport by working as an assistant track coach at Idaho State University. Idahoan Charles Burton is another Idaho Olympian. He finished his round of wrestling competition on October first, coming in at fifth place. Charles wrestled at Centennial High School in Boise and Boise State University. He has been called the ``U.S. Olympic Wrestling Team's most hidden gem,'' and I'm proud he represented our gem state in Sydney. The hard work and determination of Idaho's Olympic Athletes is an inspiration to us all. They have demonstrated the best of our State and our Nation, and I am proud to congratulate both Stacy and Charles for their personal achievement and the honor in which each represented Idaho and the United States of America.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank both Senators and the Senator from Illinois for yielding. It certainly was his prerogative not to yield because he controls the time, and I appreciate that, and the Senator from Nevada for accommodating me and working out the differences.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I had hoped that I would be able to respond in part while the Senator from Louisiana was on the floor speaking about her concerns about the CARA legislation. She certainly has made every effort to move that legislation, which is important to her State. Both the Senator from Louisiana and I serve on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on which that legislation was formed. She has always been courteous. We have worked closely together on the issue. I could not and do not support CARA as it is currently crafted and as it was voted out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I said very early on to the citizens of my State and to my colleagues on that committee that I would strongly oppose any bill that created a Federal entitlement that allowed the Federal Government to own more of the State of Idaho. The Federal Government already owns nearly 64 percent of my State. And this year you watched Federal forests in my State burn, with tremendous fire and heat, causing the destruction of the environment and resources. My State forests did not burn. The private forests in Idaho did not burn because they were managed. They were thinned. They are healthy, growing, dynamic forests that provide marvelous habitat and quality water to our streams, to our fisheries, and to the life-style of my beautiful State. Two weeks ago, I was in a helicopter flying over the nearly 1.2 million acres of charred national forests in my State--charred almost to a point of nonrecognition. It will take a decade or more for the natural environment to begin to return. That could have been avoided to some degree, if the Forest Service and its management had not become an agency of benign neglect, which had simply turned its back on these living environments, and had helped Mother Nature to improve them in a way that they would not have burned in such a catastrophic fashion. The reason I say that is because many want the Federal Government to own more land. Somehow the Federal Government's ownership has in some people's minds become synonymous with quality environment. That is simply not true today. Nearly 40 million acres of national forest land are in a dead or dying condition--bug-infested, overpopulated with trees, and as a result drought stricken, with the health of the trees declining and the health of the forests faltering. Is that a way to manage lands? No, it isn't. The Senator from Louisiana knows that. She knows my strong opposition to additional ownership of Federal property in my State. She worked with me. She worked with me very closely to try to change that equation, and we simply could not get that done. That is why we did something different in this Interior appropriations bill. It is not CARA and it is not land legacy, but it does recognize the importance of spending money for certain resource values, for certain wildlife habitat values, for certain coastal needs of the kind the Senator from Louisiana has for the general well-being of the environment with moneys coming from offshore oil royalties, many of them generated in the gulf south of her State and out into the ocean beyond Louisiana. On that, she and I do not disagree. But I will continue to be a strong opponent of an attitude or a philosophy and an effort to fund an attitude and a philosophy that somehow if the Federal Government owns the land, it is going to be better protected. In my State of Idaho, because nearly 64 percent is owned by the Federal Government, they also dictate the economy of my State. Today we had a hearing in the Small Business Committee about the impact of forest policies on all of the small communities of my State. I chair the Forestry Subcommittee of this Senate. We have held over 100 hearings since 1996 examining the character of decision-making in the U.S. Forest Service and that they ignore small business today, and they turn their back on small communities that adjoin those forests. Is it any wonder why nearly all of those small communities in Idaho and across the Nation today associated with public forests have 14 and 15 percent unemployment while the rest of our country flourishes because of the high-tech economy? No. It is quite obvious that is what is happening because this Government and this administration have locked the door on the U.S. forested land and turned their back and walked away. With that, thousands of jobs and 45,000 schoolchildren in rural schools across the Nation are deprived of the money that would have come to them by an active management plan of the U.S. Forest Service because of long-term policies that allowed counties and school districts to share in those revenues. I can't stand here as someone representing the State of Idaho and say: Give the Federal Government more money to buy more land in the State of Idaho to make it Federal. I can't do that in good conscience, and I won't. I am joined with my western colleagues to tell the Senator from Louisiana, somehow it has to be done differently. I am not going to suggest what we do in this bill is answer the problems or concerns of the Senator from Louisiana. I think it probably isn't. But I will say it is no longer an entitlement. It is not automatic for 15 years. We do not give this administration or any future administration half a billion worth of cash a year to go out and buy more and more land to turn into forest fires or dying habitat for wildlife because they won't actively manage it and care for it. There is a lot of money in here to help our national parks. There is money for urban parks. There is money for coastal acquisitions. There is a great deal of money--$1.8 billion, nearly $2 billion worth. A chart shows it ratchets it up over the next number of years to nearly $2.4 billion. It is not as originally envisioned by the CARA Coalition, but it is a great deal of what they asked for.