Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as I enter the Chamber and look to the rear to the seat occupied by our dear friend, the late Senator Paul Coverdell, it reminds me of the reality of the fragility of the lives we lead. The message is one of taking stock of what our real priorities are. Life is so short, so fragile, and our period on Earth is so temporary. At this time we join together in grieving with the family of our beloved colleague who passed away Tuesday evening. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with his wife Nancy and the family during their time of extraordinary grief. We all share in the reality that this was a tragic and unexpected loss. We all feel it in this Chamber, in the halls of the Senate office buildings and, of course, in Paul's beloved State of Georgia. But we cannot be blinded by grief to the point that we fail to recognize and celebrate the life of this outstanding public servant. He was an extraordinary public servant. I listened to some of the comments made last night after we learned of his passing. The Senator from New York said he was a man of peace. Reflecting on Paul's public service, he served his country in the Army, with deployments in Okinawa, Korea, and the Republic of China, came home to Georgia, joined the family business, helped it thrive and grow and then, beginning in 1970, served his State in the legislature, serving as minority leader for a period of 15 years. In 1989, he continued his commitment to peace as Director of the Peace Corps. In this capacity, Paul saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War. He seized the opportunity to place Peace Corps volunteers in former Eastern Bloc nations in an effort to speed their transition to democracy and peace. The wise people of Georgia, in 1992, elected Paul to the U.S. Senate. I vividly recall that this genuine, quiet man made an immediate impression upon all of us. As we got to know Paul, we found him to be deeply thoughtful, hard-working, and utterly unconcerned about the limelight. His Republican colleagues recognized his efforts and selected him to the leadership post of Republican Conference Secretary. As a U.S. Senator, Paul did superb work in the issues of education, food safety, protecting our children from drugs, promoting volunteerism, lowering the tax burden on working families and small business, and protecting the rights of citizens in their dealings with the Internal Revenue Service. We were all privileged to know Paul. He enriched our lives. My prayers and thoughts are with Paul's family, especially his wife Nancy. The Senate will miss his work ethic and thoughtfulness. The Nation will miss his ideas and his example. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I held a hearing on this issue and on S. 1797-- that bill will provide a grant of lands. While I would be happy to have that bill passed into law, I plan to work to that end. However, to assure that Craig is not left with nothing, I would also support this solution. It is my hope that one of these two approaches can be accomplished this year. My committee's hearing provides a clear record that Craig is in a unique position being the fastest growing city in Alaska and the regional center for Prince of Wales Island. The city fathers are struggling to keep up with the demands for services as people from all over the island move to Craig looking for work. The city submitted its financial records which showed its problems. Our committee responded with S. 1797.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to chat a little bit about energy this evening because there are several misconceptions relative to the position that the United States is currently in relative to the high gasoline prices that we have been subjected to in the last several months. First of all, the bad news is, there is no relief in sight. What we currently have is a situation where, simply, the available refining capacity associated with gasoline production and the demand is such that the two lines are almost parallel. In other words, our ability to produce gasoline and the current consumption of gasoline are about equal. So as a consequence, in reality, we are drawing down our reserves. This is at a time when normally our reserves would be substantially higher. There is a reason for this. I think the American people should understand and appreciate reality because what we have is a situation where our refining capacity has been reduced dramatically over the last 8 years. We have lost about 37 refineries in the United States during the last 10-year period. There has not been a new refinery built in the United States in almost two decades. What we have, then, is a concentration of our existing refineries operating at near full capacity, producing the requirements associated with the public's demand for gasoline, coupled with the problems associated with meeting the Clean Air Act, which mandates certain reformulated gasolines in various parts of the country. We had testimony before the committee of which I am chairman, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, earlier last week. One of the principals with the Environmental Protection Agency identified that the Environmental Protection Agency, under their interpretation of the Clean Air Act, has mandated as many as nine specific cuts of reformulated gasolines that have a regional application around the country. That means in California you have one type of reformulated gasoline. You have another type in Chicago. You may have another type in Atlanta. These have gone into effect as a consequence of the June 1 new mandates for reformulated gasoline in various parts of the country. What this means is, the refineries have to separate and move and store separately these different cuts of gasoline. The cost, of course, is significant from the standpoint of what the American public has to pay. We have seen, since the spiraling price of crude oil over the last year--where a year ago prices were $11, $12, $13, $14 a barrel--an average price of nearly $30 a barrel this year. The difficulty we experience is, having become so dependent on imported oil, currently imported oil is running at 56 percent of total U.S. consumption. As we look at our neighbors in OPEC, we recognize that we have an increasing dependence on their resources. In other words, they control the supply and we are the market. As a consequence, when we have significant demand increases of consumption, we go to OPEC, as our Secretary of Energy has done from time to time, encouraging more production. However, OPEC seems to have learned from experience. They have developed a strategy internally where they have set a price floor and a price ceiling. The floor evidently is $22 a barrel of oil; the ceiling is $28 a barrel. In recent days, there has been an anticipation that OPEC will increase production, today we have the president of OPEC indicating that since the price fell temporarily below $28 a barrel, OPEC was not going to increase production and was going to review the matter in another 20 days. The American public should be aware that we are caught between a floor-to-ceiling $22 to $28. The American public should be aware that as a consequence of OPEC's internal discipline, there is no relief in sight for a reduction of gas prices of anything appreciable. There will be perhaps some regional reductions as we get the reformulated gasoline under control in various parts of the country. It is also important to recognize that one of the most significant additives, MTBE, has been dismissed as contrary to the health of the public in the sense that this reformulated portion does get into the water table. As a consequence, we are substituting ethanol for MTBE, which is a grain and agriculture product that enjoys a partial subsidy but nevertheless is a satisfactory additive to make reformulated gasoline to meet the market demands in the various regions of the country. The point I want to make is that on gasoline, our demand is up. Our production is relatively stagnant, even though we are producing at the maximum capacity for our refineries. We have a situation where we are actually pulling down our reserves. For many Members of this body, particularly in the Northeast corridor, who are concerned legitimately about the high cost of heating oil and the awareness that there might not be adequate reserves being built up during the summer to meet the demand if there is a cold winter, they justifiably should be concerned. What we should be doing now is dropping off substantially our production of gasoline and building up reserves for heating oil. But that is not the case. Our reserves for heating oil are at an all-time low. We have had consideration from the Clinton administration and some Members to set up some kind of a heating oil strategic reserve. This is rather an interesting dilemma, if you walk through it and understand it. It doesn't necessarily create the relief we want and may suggest that the Government is involving itself in the manipulation of pricing of petroleum products. Let me cite an example of what I fear. Currently, the thought is that there will be an arrangement made by the Department of Energy to acquire up to 2 million barrels of heating oil reserve somewhere in the Northeast, perhaps in the New York City area, where they can lease tankage. The tradeoff on where the oil would come from would be crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Louisiana. That oil, of course, is not refined. If we take an equivalent of 2 million barrels plus, because we want to have value for value, and take the crude oil out of SPR and refine it, we are offsetting the refining capacity of that refiner of making gasoline or perhaps heating oil with the substitution of the oil from SPR. That is purchased by the Government, put in storage, and sits in storage until such time as circumstances dictate the trigger be pulled and the oil released. Then the question is, What is the appropriate triggering mechanism? Are we going to trigger the release of based on the price of heating oil, or are we going to do it as a consequence of a supply shortage? Last year, we had a critical situation in the Northeast but did not actually have anyone go without heating oil. What happened last year is the reserves were very low, but there was enough to meet the demand. This year, the fear, rightly so, for many in the Northeast is that there might not be enough fuel oil to meet the demand if the winter gets cold. The dilemma is, if the Government is putting in 2 million barrels and going to basically store it, then is the industry that ordinarily would build up an inventory and tie up its cash-flow for a period of time going to do that, knowing that the Federal Government is doing the same thing? It is going to be a business decision, but it is going to be interesting to see what the private sector does. It might be simply a tradeoff. Why should the private sector build up an inventory when it knows the Government has an inventory? In the end, is there any more fuel oil left for the Northeast corridor if indeed there is a cold winter? I bring this out to point to the difficulty we are having in coming to grips with the reality that we have a greater demand for oil than we have of productive capability. We have become dependent again on our neighbors in OPEC--and not just the 10 official OPEC members. One of our other associates is a gentleman by the name of Saddam Hussein, who is the head of Iraq. Many people forget that we fought a war over there just a decade ago. We lost 147 lives; we had 427 Americans who were wounded; we had 23 taken prisoner. Today, Iraq is the fastest growing source of oil for the United States. Isn't that rather ironic? I can't understand why Americans are not indignant over the fact that we are looking to this tyrant, who we know is selling oil, smuggling it out, generating funds for missile development--there was just an article today relative to the testing of a new missile by Iraq--developing his biological capability. This man is a bad man. He is up to no good. Yet the United States is looking to him to bail us out for our supply of oil. It is absolutely ironic that we would look to Saddam Hussein. August 2 will be the 10th anniversary of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. What a difference a decade makes. Let's do a little comparison. I think the American people should wake up and be a little sensitive to the fact that we have lifted embargoes on technologies that would allow him to increase his refining capacity. The U.N. no longer does any inspections of what is going on in Iraq or where his oil is going or whether it is going for the Food for Peace Program. Ten years ago, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to stimulate higher oil prices and to build up his war machine. We know that. That was 10 years ago. Now high oil prices yield Saddam Hussein $75 million a day under a legal U.N. oil-for-food program and $2 million a day in illegal smuggling revenue which is used to build up his war machine. Mr. President, we know this for a fact. We know what he is doing with the funds he gets from smuggling oil. Ten years ago, Saddam Hussein was proved to be the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. As of today, it has cost thousands of lives, some $10 billion of U.S. taxpayers' money, and 150,000 sorties, where we have flown to enforce our no-fly zone. It has cost the American taxpayers $10 billion to fence in Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is still the biggest threat to peace in the Mideast and certainly the biggest threat to Israel. I can't understand why there is not more of an awakening of the fact that we are supporting this tyrant. We are becoming more dependent upon him and we are playing into his hands. Where is the logic? Where is the American foreign policy? I can simplify foreign policy with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq in one single syllogism. We buy his oil, we send him our dollars, we put his oil in our airplanes, and fly over and bomb him. He puts out a press release saying how many people we injured or killed, they rally around Saddam Hussein, and the process starts all over again. Is this the foreign policy of the United States that we support? Or would we rather ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist? I think the latter is probably the case. It is absolutely incredible that we don't face up to what is happening and the fact that we are condoning this action. Ten years ago, Saddam Hussein was using oil revenue to purchase weapons of mass destruction. Now, Saddam Hussein--the same guy--is using his oil revenue to purchase weapons of mass destruction. We know this. They just tested them yesterday. He has the ability, with the advanced weaponry he has developed, to extend the missile clear to Israel. Ten years ago, the United States purchased less than 400,000 barrels a day from Iraq--before the war started. Now the United States is purchasing 750,000 barrels a day. Ten years ago, the United States began to import more than 50 percent of our oil, and OPEC became an important voice in U.S. energy policy. Now, the United States, as I have indicated, is importing more than 56 percent of our oil. With Iraq, the fastest-growing supplier, Saddam Hussein has become an important voice--imagine that--in our U.S. energy policy. Saddam Hussein may have lost the war, but he certainly seems to have won the peace. With its energy policy--or lack thereof--the Clinton-Gore administration has snatched defeat from the jaws of the gulf war victory. I will repeat that. Saddam Hussein may have lost the war, but he has won the peace. With its energy policy, or lack of an energy policy, the Clinton-Gore administration has snatched defeat from the jaws of the gulf victory. We are very much dependent on this source, and the likelihood of reducing it is not going to take place until we send a clear message as to what our energy policy will be. Now, the alternatives aren't really very complex. We either import more and pay the price, or we commit to development and exploration of our energy resources here in the United States. Wyoming, Montana, Colorado--the overthrust belt--have a tremendous potential for oil and gas development, as does Illinois, Pennsylvania, and numerous other States. We have withdrawn about 64 percent of the public land in the United States and exempted it from exploration, let alone production. Now, we have a tremendous potential in OCS areas--off the shores of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and other States, some of which don't want to develop OCS areas off their States. That is their own business. But for those who do they should be allowed to do so. It is kind of interesting because our Vice President made a statement in Louisiana that if he is elected President, he will make an attempt to buy back OCS oil leases and cancel other leases. Mr. President, that leaves one with the question: Where is this energy going to come from? We have energy coming from my State of Alaska. We have been producing 20 to 25 percent of our domestic crude oil for the last twenty years. We have the potential for a major discovery in a small sliver of the Arctic area, the Coastal Plain. Let me explain how small that sliver is. In the general area of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, there are 19 million acres. That is as big as the size of the State of South Carolina. Half of that has been reserved in perpetuity as a wilderness. Nearly the other half has been set aside in a refuge, also in perpetuity, subject to the Congress, who are the only ones that can change it. Out of those 19 million acres, 1.5 million acres was left out to the discretion of Congress back in 1980. That was done as a consequence of the belief that this was the area where a likely discovery could be made. Well, there have been a lot of estimates. When you look for oil, you never know where you are going to find it or how much you are going to find. If you are going to find it in Alaska, you better find a lot of it; otherwise, you can't afford to produce it. Recent estimates go as high as 16 billion barrels of recoverable reserves. That is based on the latest discovery and production technology, even though much of this area has not been made available for 3D seismic evaluation because it is under the Department of Interior. Sixteen billion barrels would be as much as what we would import from Saudi Arabia for a 30-year period. So it is a substantial amount. What we need to do in this country--and we need to do it now; the longer we wait, the more dependent we are going to be on OPEC--is to set a clear and decisive policy toward a commitment to reduce our dependence on imports. That is what we have done, along with Senator Lott and several colleagues, in the legislation we introduced, which is the National Energy Security Act of 2000. We have adopted a goal to guide our energy policy, and the goal is to reduce our dependence on imported oil to less than 50 percent by the end of the decade. When you have that kind of objective, you have an opportunity to send a clear message. We have to send a clear message. We have to send a message to Saudi Arabia and to Kuwait, and we have to send it to Venezuela and Mexico, that we are committed to reducing our dependence and we are committed to increase exploration and production here in the United States. I admire the commitment of America's environmental community who, for the most part, oppose domestic oil production and exploration in the United States. But I remind them that we have the technology, the know-how, the American can-do spirit, and we can make the impact of development much smaller here and keep the jobs and the dollars at home, as opposed to the exploration that occurs in other areas of the world where they don't have the environmental safeguards. So what kind of a tradeoff is it? Is it better for the environment that we do it right here at home, or if we depend on those countries that don't have that internal discipline and consideration for the environment? The industry says that if, indeed, they find oil in this sliver of the Arctic, out of the 1.5 million acres, which is part of the 19 million acres, which is the size of South Carolina, the footprint would be somewhere between 1,500 to 2,000 acres. My friends who are in the farming business know what kind of a farm a 1,500-acre or 2,000-acre farm is. The drilling and exploration would be done in the wintertime. The roads would be ice roads. There would be no permanent community. There would be a compatibility with the caribou. We have addressed all the issues, and we have proven it in Prudhoe Bay, where 20 percent of the crude oil has come from for the last two decades. But that was old technology; we have new technology now. Many don't want us to have an opportunity to find out if indeed the oil is there, and the oil is there in the reserves that we have. Some people more or less dismiss it, and say, well, we are in a situation with oil. Don't worry. We have lots of natural gas. As chairman of the Energy Committee, I have a little bit of a different view about the situation with natural gas in this country. Let me start out by reminding you and the American people that there is a rude awakening coming with regard to natural gas. It is going to affect Americans in their heating bills. It is going to affect Americans in their electric bills. This is what has happened. A year ago in this country the price for natural gas was around $2.30. Six months ago, it was $2.56. Deliveries in January are $4.30. I know many utilities are going to their commissions advising them of rate increases. This hasn't hit the American public yet. If we thought the hue and cry on the increased price of heating oil or gasoline was going to bring down the roof, wait until you hear the cry of the American people this winter when they get their gas bills. How did this come about? Somebody said, well, we have 160 trillion cubic feet in reserve. That was last year. We have 150 trillion cubic feet this year. We are, again, pulling down our reserves faster than we are finding new reserves. When you do that, you deplete your base. What also is happening to put further pressure is the electric industry is turning to gas turbines for power generation--turbines. The permitting process is much easier and much cheaper than for building a coal-fired plant. We have a situation where we are coming to grips. The American people aren't aware of it. They are not reflecting on it because it doesn't really hit them like they were hit in 1973 or 1974 when we had the Arab oil embargo. Some people in this body might be old enough to remember. We had gasoline lines around the block. The public was outraged: How could this happen in this country? How could we have these kinds of shortages? We did. The public reacted. We played the blame game and pointed the finger at everybody and everything. Gasoline and oil prices had no relief in sight. I can guarantee it, natural gas has spiraled. It is escalating with no relief in sight. How did we get in this situation? One reason is we haven't had an energy policy for a long, long time. What is our energy policy? Clearly, it is to provide more imports of oil into this country as opposed to developing domestic oil reserves. What is our gas policy on natural gas? We have withdrawn from public lands areas that ordinarily would be available for exploration--64 percent of the overthrust belt, as I have indicated. What have we done with regard to nuclear power? Twenty percent of our power generation is nuclear energy. We can't pass a bill in this body to deal with the waste. We can't override the President's veto. We are one vote short to address what to do with our nuclear waste. There hasn't been a nuclear plant built in this country in 20 years. There is not going to be. They are building them in China. They are building them in Taiwan. They are building them in France. France is 76 percent dependent on nuclear energy. They don't have air quality problems. They are never going to be held hostage by the Mideast again. They learned that in 1973. We don't have a policy on oil other than to import more. We don't have a policy for encouraging domestic gas exploration. We don't have a policy to address what we are going to do with our nuclear industry let alone resolve the nuclear waste problem. We have lots of coal. Are we building coal plants? Absolutely not. The permitting time for coal plants puts them out of reach of reality. There are none being built. Tell me from where the energy is going to come. There are many who say, well, we should find alternative energy. I am all for it. But you name it. We have spent over $70 billion in the last two decades subsidizing the development of alternative energy. What is it? Solar, biomass, wind? Some places in my State, such as Barrow, don't get much daylight in the wintertime. It is dark all the time. Sometimes the wind doesn't blow. These alternatives are fine. They have a place. We have to encourage them. But they are not going to take the place of oil and gas in the near future. By the time we are through evaluating our alternatives, it is not a very bright picture because the alternatives just aren't there. The alternatives provide us with about 4 percent of our current energy mix. We have hydro. I have not spoken of hydro. It is a renewable resource. There is no question about it. But this administration curiously enough has identified hydro as nonrenewable. I grew up in Ketchikan, AK. We have a couple hundred inches of rain a year. I remember one year we had 226 inches of rain. We have a few little hydrodams. To suggest rainfall and hydro are not renewable is beyond me. But, nevertheless, the administration proposes to remove some of the dams from the Columbia and Snake Rivers to rebuild the fish runs. Unfortunately, some time ago decisions were made, rightly or wrongly, with regard to the tradeoff on posterity. It is just that simple. You are going to have your natural runs of fish. You are not going to have dams. But they trade it consciously or unconsciously for the agricultural industry associated and what dams those rivers could do with benefits in low-cost power to the residents of the area. Whether you have an aluminum plant, whether you have Boeing, whether you have tremendous agricultural productivity out of land that was once desert, they traded those things off. You can't want it both ways. You want to rebuild the natural runs. Most of the biologists will tell you that you can enhance runs by bringing in new stock, if your ability to rebuild the native runs is pretty remote. Some people suggest it is not possible. But if you tear down the dams, there is another tradeoff. How much barge traffic that moves the grain and commerce up and down the Columbia and Snake Rivers is going to go back on the highways? It is all going to go back, isn't it? Somebody said there will be 700,000 more trucks on our highways, if you tear down the dams. What kind of a tradeoff is that? There is no energy policy identifiable with this administration. It is that simple--no oil, no domestic exploration, no hydro, no nuclear, no coal. That is the reality of where we are. It is a pretty bleak picture. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement from Richard Butler from the Washington Post dated Monday, July 17, entitled ``Guess Who's Back.'' It is our friend, Saddam Hussein. It is entitled ``Saddam Hussein is reconstituting his capability to deploy weapons of mass destruction.'' I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement that came out of Reuters today entitled ``Venezuelan OPEC president Ali Rodriguez said Tuesday there would be no oil production rise at the end of this month because prices have fallen below the upper limit of OPEC's price target ban.''

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, that is the president of OPEC. The article further states: Speaking to reporters on his arrival in Venezuela after a tour of OPEC countries, the Venezuelan energy and mines minister said the mechanism to trigger an increase in production depended on the OPEC oil basket price staying above $28 a barrel for 20 consecutive days. Our Secretary of Energy made a deal when he was over there several months ago and petitioned the Saudis for greater production. That was at the time we were first beginning to feel the price escalation. He did generate a commitment for another 500,000 barrels of oil. However, the American public and the American press made the assumption we were going to get all that increased production. We only got 16 percent. That is our allocation in this country. Mr. President, 16 percent of 500,000 barrels is not enough to fuel Washington, DC, in 1 day. It is a drop in the bucket. Other areas of the world are recovering, including Asia, Japan, and they are increasing in their demand for oil. In any event, speaking to reporters, the Venezuela Energy and Mines Minister says the mechanism to trigger an increase depended on the OPEC oil basket price staying above $28 a barrel for 20 consecutive days. He further says the price of OPEC's basket of crude oil fell to $27.46 a barrel on Monday, according to the OPEC secretary in Vienna. Asked what the result from the fall in the basket price would be, Rodriguez replied: The 20-day process will begin again. So we are on another 20 days; no relief for at least 20 days. They are not going to produce more oil, so the price will stay around $30, where it is currently. OPEC's news agency carried a report on Monday quoting Rodriguez and other members to prepare for an output increase of 500,000 barrels a day if prices did not fall. Well, they fell. And asked whether he planned to consult with fellow OPEC members on a possible increase, Rodriguez replied that does not require consultation. He added that there is unanimous support in the cartel for an OPEC summit in Caracas in September. Remember where you heard it first. Right out of Caracas, from the president of OPEC, there is no relief in sight until September. Maybe we ought to go out and fill up our tanks today because it might go up tomorrow. There we are. A capsule, if you will, of the dilemma with regard to a lack of an energy policy, where we are on gasoline, where we are in heating oil, where we are in natural gas. Who bears the responsibility for this? I think it is fair to say, at times this is a partisan body of some regard, I think we have seen from time to time situations where we point the finger and don't want to bear the responsibility. At the risk of generating some reaction from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I think it is fair I point out some inconsistencies with regard to the position of our Vice President. As we look at the coming election and the role of the candidate on energy and on the environment, I think we have to ask where the candidates really stand. I will give one person's view. As the campaigns march toward November, I think we have to ask ourselves where Vice President Gore really stands in the minds of the voters. I served with the Vice President in this body and I have the deepest respect for him, but I think we are aware that, while he is an expert politician, he is recognized as an extreme environmentalist to some extent. He has a mixed bag. He is involved in policy but he also appears to be a zinc miner, an oil company shareholder, and has a record of shifting his position on energy and environmental issues. One looks back on gasoline prices, which I have talked a good deal about this evening, but in his book ``Earth in the Balance,'' the Vice President, who certainly structures himself as an environmentalist said: Higher taxes on fossil fuels is one of the logical first steps in changing our policies in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment. ``Changing our policies'' is certainly legitimate. Even as the Vice President was casting a tie-breaking vote in this body to raise gasoline taxes--and it was his vote that raised them 4.3 cents--the Environmental Protection Agency determined that more expensive reformulated gasoline needed to be sold in many areas of the country. According to memoranda from the Department of Energy and the Congressional Research Service, EPA's gasoline requirements balkanized the market and strained supply and raised prices. One has to question whether, if the Vice President's policies were so effective in raising prices, one would expect the Vice President to be somewhat satisfied. But obviously, confronted with angry consumers, Al Gore, the politician, suggested that refiners and oil companies were to blame. There is a lot of blaming around here for anything that is an inconvenience to the public. We all scurry for cover. Again, I think we have to look at whether what Al Gore wrote in his book, ``Earth in the Balance,'' suggests high energy prices would thwart the utilization of gasoline that, indeed, he might be satisfied with higher energy prices. I have been handed a note relative to a matter that is of concern to all Members, and as a consequence I believe the leader is going to request the attention of this body. I therefore suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for a period of about 15 minutes, or until the leader seeks recognition.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 25 at 9:30 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on Natural Gas Supply. For further information, please call Dan Kish at 202-224-8276 or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-4756.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Arizona for his forthright address on this very important subject that certainly needs to be resolved by this body. As we continue the debate on repealing the death tax, there is a fundamental question to which we all must respond: Should the Federal Government have the right to confiscate as much as 60 percent of the assets that an individual or family business has built over a lifetime? That is what this debate is all about, not the class warfare arguments we have heard from the other side, to a degree. In my view, whether the estate tax is 60 percent or 40 percent or 20 percent, the estate tax is morally indefensible. It causes businesses that have been developed over a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice to be broken up just so Uncle Sam can take what some think is the Government's rightful share of that business. I ask another question: Why do we have an estate tax? It may be interesting to go into the background. The reason is quite simple. Up until 1913, the Federal Government was primarily financed by tariffs. Estate taxes were periodically imposed to primarily finance wars or the threat of a war. For example, to finance the Spanish-American War, the Federal Government imposed a temporary estate tax in 1898. It was repealed in 1902. With the advent of World War I and the drop in tariff revenue, Congress adopted an estate tax with rates ranging from 1 percent to 10 percent. What must be recognized about the estate taxes adopted in the 19th and early 20th centuries is the simple fact that there were no Federal income taxes to finance the Federal Government at that time. So the Government looked at estate taxes. As a result, all of the wealth that accumulated in estates had never before been taxed. By contrast, when an individual dies today, his or her estate consists of assets that have been built with aftertax money. The elderly woman who dies with several hundred thousand dollars worth of Treasury notes in her estate has paid Federal income taxes every single year on those notes. The businesses that have been built up over a lifetime have paid income taxes and, in many cases, have paid corporate taxes to the Federal Government. Why, after accumulating wealth and having paid income taxes on that wealth, does the Federal Government have the right to confiscate that wealth? I do not think it has that right. While I believe this is a moral question, I also look at the realities of estate planning and conclude that when confronted with an unfair and confiscatory tax system, Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea that the Government has such a right. With proper estate planning, it is clear that many Americans can structure their affairs in such a way that they can entirely avoid paying any estate taxes. In fact, of the estates valued at more than $600,000, more than half, or 55 percent, paid not a single dollar in estate taxes. Of the richest Americans, those with estates valued over $20 million, nearly one-third paid no estate tax. It seems to this Senator that the estate tax has become a bonanza for estate planners and tax accountants and an unfair and onerous burden to the small businesses and farmers of America who do not have the resources nor the time to take advantage of sophisticated estate planning schemes. As a result, more than 60 percent of the burden of the estate tax falls on estates valued at $5 million or less. As my colleagues know, the primary asset in many of these smaller estates is the family business, whether a small retail or wholesale operation or a family farm. When it comes time to pay the estate tax, many of these family businesses are forced to liquidate a portion of the business or even, in some cases, the businesses themselves; or sell the farm to basically pay the taxes. That is unconscionable especially when it has taken decades to build a business. The ability to pass on the assets that have been built up over a generation to another generation is made unrealistic by the tax burden associated with the estate tax and, in the case of those who have not been fortunate enough to do estate planning, many of these people feel they have been unjustly penalized by their Government, and I agree with them. When it comes time to pay the estate tax, many of these family businesses, as I have indicated, are forced to liquidate. The other option for many of these businesses is to saddle a business with a large debt to pay the tax. This only heightens the cash-flow problems that many small businesses confront as a matter of everyday activity. Of course, when sophisticated estate planning is available, many of these small business estate problems would undoubtedly go away, but then we as policymakers should ask ourselves: What is the sense in constructing a tax that primarily produces a livelihood to those who can advise others on how to avoid the tax? I will repeat that because I think it bears a little reflection. We as policymakers really must ask ourselves: What is the sense in constructing a tax that primarily provides a livelihood to those who can advise others on how to avoid the tax? It is a bit ironic. The time for the death tax has passed. I hope we will not see a filibuster of this measure that will help maintain the growth and development of our dynamic economy and protect the small businesses that are the backbone of our Nation. Seeing no other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2071. S. 2071 will promote the reliability of our electric power grid. I strongly support the enactment of this legislation, but there should be no misunderstanding that it does only part of the job of protecting consumers. It establishes enforceable rules for the use of the interstate transmission grid, but it does not stimulate the construction of new generation and transmission. New transmission and generation are essential if we are going to avoid electricity shortages this summer and in the future. While it is too late to avoid the problems this summer, if we start now it is not too late for the future. The best way to ensure that consumers have a reliable and reasonably- priced supply of electricity is through comprehensive legislation-- which addresses other impediments to competition. Along with provisions to stimulate construction of new generation and transmission, it is essential that we repeal both the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, PURPA. Both PUHCA and PURPA have long out-lived their usefulness, and they are now hurting both consumers and competition. PUHCA prevents electric utilities and others from fully competing in the electric power market, and that hurts competition. PUHCA is an archaic 65-year-old law that has long outlived its usefulness. Sixty five years ago PUHCA was needed to protect consumers, but other laws and Federal agencies now fully protect consumers. Thus, repeal of PUHCA would benefit consumers by enhancing competition without any loss of any needed consumer protections. Legislation to repeal PUHCA is on the Senate Calendar, S. 313, Calendar No. 23, and I would urge that the Senate move to its consideration. Turning now to PURPA, it also harms consumers, and thus deserves to be repealed. PURPA makes electric utilities purchase power whether or not they need it, and to pay so-called ``full avoided cost'' for that power whether or not that price is above true market price. And these costs are just passed on to consumers through higher electricity prices. It is estimated that as a result of PURPA consumers are today paying $8 billion per year extra for their electricity. I would have liked to bring to the floor comprehensive legislation, such as the bill which I introduced, S. 2098, but I could not reach agreement with my Democratic colleagues on the Committee. As a result, we were able to report only this more limited measure to create rules of the road for our interstate electricity transmission grid. I will now discuss the background and need for this legislation. The Nation's interstate electric transmission grid is an extremely complex network that is also interconnected with the transmission grids of Canada and Mexico. It has developed over decades with various voluntary agreements between utilities and others that allow areas to work together to respond to changing power needs that vary from day-to-day, hour-to-hour and even minute-to-minute. Many of these voluntary agreements were developed after a disastrous event in 1965 that led to a major blackout in New York City and throughout other parts of the Northeast. While this voluntary system has worked well for the past 35 years, fundamental changes in the electric power industry are making this voluntary system less workable for the future. With the expansion of competition in the wholesale electric power market--starting with the 1992 Energy Policy Act--the system of buying and selling wholesale power is now many times more complex than it was less than a decade ago. With a stronger economy, electricity usage has increased while thousands of new electricity marketers and buyers have created new stresses on the system. Moreover, the emergence of competition in the wholesale power market has changed the ability and willingness of market participants to act voluntarily, particularly when it is not in their economic interest to do so. As a result, the existing scheme of voluntary compliance with voluntary industry reliability rules is simply no longer adequate. There has been a marked increase in the number and seriousness of violations of voluntary reliability rules. Under a voluntary system, there is no penalty for violating a reliability standard. The users and operators of the system, who used to cooperate voluntarily on reliability matters, are now competitors without the same incentives to cooperate with each other or comply with voluntary reliability rules. For example, last summer during an extremely hot period one Midwest utility took without any penalty electric power from the grid that it was not entitled to. It did so without even informing other utilities on the grid what it was doing. This action came close to jeopardizing power reliability in several States. This legislation will prevent that kind of inappropriate activity in the future. In order to maintain grid reliability, rules must be made mandatory and enforceable, and fairly applied to all participants in the electricity market. To address this need, more than a year ago a group of electricity industry officials began meeting to develop legislative language. As a result of this effort, the North American Electric Reliability Council and a broad coalition of industry organizations have jointly proposed the language which is embodied in S. 2071. The legislation is supported by virtually all aspects of the electric power industry, including: the American Public Power Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the Electric Power Supply Association, the Electricity Consumers Resource Council, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the Canadian Electricity Association. The proposal follows the model of the Securities and Exchange Commission in its oversight of the securities industry's self- regulatory organizations--the stock exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers. Let me now describe the key elements of S. 2071. S. 2071 helps protect grid reliability by creating an industry-run, FERC overseen, organization that sets enforceable rules for the use of the interstate transmission grid. It also has provisions to ensure that States have an appropriate role in promoting reliability. S. 2071 authorizes the establishment of a self-regulating Electric Reliability Organization. Both the establishment of the Electric Reliability Organization and the reliability rules it establishes are subject to approval and oversight by the FERC. The legislation spells out specific criteria required for the new Electric Reliability Organization. In essence, the requirements are that the Organization be independent and fair. The Electric Reliability Organization would establish, monitor and enforce compliance with reliability standards for the interstate bulk power system. The legislation does not give the Electric Reliability Organization or any affiliated regional reliability entity any authority to build or to pay for the building of any transmission or other facility necessary for a bulk power user to comply with a reliability requirement. The reliability standards established by the Electric Reliability Organization would be mandatory on all owners, users and operators of the interstate bulk power system. The cost of complying with a reliability requirement is the responsibility of bulk power users, not the Electric Reliability Organization or any affiliated regional reliability entity. The reliability standards only concern the operational security of the bulk power system. They do not deal with generation adequacy, reserve margins; distribution system reliability; safety; transmission siting; or retail customer choice plans. Activities conducted in compliance with the statutory requirements receive a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the Federal antitrust laws. Until the new Electric Reliability Organization is up and running, the existing North American Electric Reliability Council and its individual regional reliability councils may file with FERC those existing reliability standards they propose to be mandatory in the interim. The Electric Reliability Organization may delegate authority to implement and enforce regional standards to an Affiliated Regional Reliability Entity, which can enforce reliability standards and take disciplinary action against system operators and users. As I said before, the real way to prevent brownouts and blackouts is through comprehensive legislation that stimulates the construction of new generation and transmission. This legislation will help, but much, much more needs to be done. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to pass it without amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works are both correct that the legislation will not affect or modify any requirements of our important environmental laws or authorize the electric reliability organizations to waive or modify those requirements.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, throughout the rancorous campaign finance reform debate I have consistently argued that the only reasonable solution rests in increased disclosure and the active enforcement of current laws. For this reason, I voted in support of H.R. 4762--legislation requiring 527 organizations to disclose their political activities and supporters. I want to unequivocally state, however, that I believe this bill is only the first step towards complete disclosure and accountability in campaign financing. Financing laws must be fair, and they must be universal. Disclosure requirements must be extended to other tax-free organizations as well, namely Internal Revenue Code 501(c) groups that have actively participated in local and national elections. What is the benefit of disclosure laws if they do not apply to all? I suggest that unbalanced and incomplete restrictions will only enhance efforts to manipulate campaign financing laws. 527 groups will, essentially, be encouraged to pack up shop and re-emerge as 501(c) groups. Quickly, they will be able to continue their efforts to influence elections with limited disclosure requirements. Clearly, more reform must be done. For this reason, I urge this body to move forward and extend disclosure requirements to 501(c) organizations. I doubt anyone would suggest that 501(c)(4) civic groups have not made efforts to express a political message. Earlier this year, one 501(c)(5) labor union openly professed its intention to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence House elections. And our nation's media has been awash with efforts by 501(c)(6) corporations to convey their political messages. Yet, our financing system fails to require these groups to provide expenditure and donor information. This is wrong. Recently, I cast a vote that would seem to be in conflict with my support of H.R. 4762. I voted against similar language in an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill. It is important to note, however, that my vote was on a constitutional point of order. If the Section 527 amendment was included in the Defense bill, it would have converted the bill into a revenue measure originating in the Senate and caused the defense authorization bill to be blue-slipped-- essentially killed--when it is sent to the House. This is not a matter of mere semantics, it is mandated by the Constitution. Regardless of the legislation's merits, as a senator I must uphold the Constitution. My vote reflects this duty. But with H.R. 4762, the procedural obstructions were removed. I support active disclosure in our campaign financing system. By making contributions public, the American people can decide for themselves who they want to support. When issue ads from supposedly public interest groups are aired, the American public can now find out who is funding these ads. For example, we may now be able to learn whether ads for so- called environmental causes are actually being financed by members of OPEC who want to maintain their monopoly and prevent us from exploring for oil in the U.S. I hope that we will soon extend the disclosure requirements to other organizations so that the American public can truly know who finances the public relations campaigns that influence our modern elections. Mr. President, a word of caution is in order. I am sensitive to the legitimate needs of private citizens to criticize government without fear of retaliation. We must never forget that we are the nation of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The very men who wrote under the anonymous name of ``Publius,'' shaping our government through the Federalist Papers. Would such thought and expression have survived if the cloak of anonymity was removed? Political speech is free speech, and private citizens who have not sought preferred tax status should not be limited in their rights of expression, their freedom to associate, or their right to privacy. Somewhere, the proper balance between complete disclosure and the right to free expression resides. I believe H.R. 4762 is a good first step in striking this balance. Clearly, those who expect tax preferred status to advocate their political message are within the grasp of disclosure laws. I reiterate my support for full disclosure, and once again call for quick action upon more comprehensive disclosure legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer my congratulations to the Challenger Learning Center of Alaska, its Board of Directors, and staffers, on their Official Launch Ceremony on July 7, 2000. The Challenger Learning Center of Alaska will be part of the national network of 50 Learning Centers operating in the United States, Canada, and England established in memory of the 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle crew. Located in Kenai, Alaska, the Challenger Learning Center of Alaska simulates space missions to give students the opportunity to explore the endless possibilities available in science and technology fields. Mr. President, currently 40 percent of America's 4th graders read below the basic level on national reading tests. On international tests, the nation's twelfth graders rank last in Advanced Physics compared with students in 18 other countries. And one-third of all incoming college freshmen must enroll in a remedial reading, writing, or mathematics class before taking regular courses. If we are going to turn these dismal statistics around this country needs an innovative approach to teaching. The Challenger Learning Center of Alaska is working towards ensuring that our elementary and secondary students of today are the best-educated and motivated college graduates of tomorrow. The Challenger Learning Center programs will not only create an environment conductive to pursuing the sciences, they will also assist students in developing skills vital to every field. In the Alaska workplace of the 21st century, survival will depend on teamwork, problem solving, communication and decision-making. Like no other educational program, the Challenger Learning Center of Alaska will help all of Alaska's students develop these critical skills while providing the solid educational content that promotes science literacy. Mr. President, educators continue to site education as the number one determinate in an individual's success. I believe that the Challenger Learning Center of Alaska will profoundly affect the future of Alaska. I commend the Challenger Learning Center staff, Board of Directors, NASA and statewide communities for their tireless efforts and dedication to our young Alaskans.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is appropriate I comment on the announced position by our Vice President today on his program to lower oil imports and stabilize climate change. As identified in the AP summary of June 27, under a program to ``lower oil import and stabilize climate,'' the Vice President's plan for a national energy security and environmental trust fund calls ``for diverting more than $80 billion over the next 10 years from projected Federal budget surpluses for tax incentives to drive investment in energy efficient technologies for transportation and energy use.'' Notice it doesn't identify any new source of energy to relieve the shortage. He proposes in a $4.2 billion program to encourage electric production from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and $1 billion for accelerated depreciation for investments and distributed power assets. But the bulk of the plan is expected to cost $68 billion over the next decade and is dedicated to what Gore calls a technology for tomorrow, a competitive program designed to provide tax relief, loans, grants, bonds, and other financial instruments for emission reduction at powerplants and industrial facilities. He doesn't mention one word about what kind of energy he proposes we are going to use. He indicates we will harness that uniquely American power of innovation. Innovation will not go in your gas tank and get you home or get you on a vacation. He goes on to say: We will say to the Nation's inventors and entrepreneurs, if you invest in these new technologies, America will invest in you. The Presidential candidate said: Through the power of free market, we will take a dramatic step forward for our children's health, which will also be a dramatic new step towards a stable climate. It is a good deal of rhetoric and sounds pretty good. But in reading that, one would come to the conclusion that we simply have not been doing anything in the area of renewables. I point out for the Record, in the last 5 years this country has spent $1.5 billion for renewable energy research and development. What have we done over the last two decades? We have spent $17 billion over the last 20 years in direct spending, in tax incentives for renewables. My point is, we are all supportive of renewables, but how successful have we been? We have been putting money on them. We have been providing tax incentives. Our total renewable energy constitutes less than 4 percent of our total energy produced. That excludes hydro. Mr. President, 4 percent is from biomass, less than 1 percent from solar and wind. Yet most of the money in the technology has gone to solar, wind, and biomass. So when the Vice President suggests a program of expenditures, some $80 billion over the next 10 years, we need relief now--the American consumer, the American motorist, the trucker. We see on our cab bills a surcharge. We see on the airplane bills a surcharge. We need relief now. We have spent $1.5 billion for renewable research over the last 20 years and $17 billion in the same period in direct spending and direct incentives for renewables. My point is not to belittle renewables or their important role, but the reality is there is simply not enough. At less than 4 percent--excluding hydro--they simply are not going to provide the relief we need. I think it is important we understand the Vice President's programs. While we all want to conserve energy, we want to reduce pollution, we want to reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil, the facts are in many cases we are not reducing the dependence on foreign oil. We are increasing. In 1973 and 1974 when we had the Arab oil embargo, we were 37-percent dependent on imported oil. Today, we are 56 percent on an average and we have gone as high as 64 percent. In the Vice President's plan, I want to know how he plans to reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil when the Secretary of Energy is out soliciting for greater production from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. He wants to reduce the threat posed by global warming. I think that is a challenge for American technology and ingenuity. He wants to curtail brownouts by increasing electric grid reliability. What has the administration done of late in that regard? They have not worked with the Energy Committee, which I chair, on electric restructuring, which was designed specifically to address how we were going to provide an incentive for more transmission lines to be built so we could ensure that we would not have brownouts, how we were going to ensure that we would have adequate energy, whether natural gas, coal, oil, or nuclear. This administration, right down the line, in its energy policy, specifically, has highlighted that it does not have an energy policy. We have seen that in our inability to prevail on high-level nuclear waste storage. We are one vote short of a veto override. It is also important to go in and identify the new initiatives that the Vice President has indicated are in his policy statement. One is to ``extend incentives for natural gas exploration.'' That is actually in his statement. But let me refer to a statement our Vice President made October 22, 1999, in Rye, NH: I will do everything in my power to make sure there is no new drilling-- No new drilling, Mr. President. even in areas already leased by previous administrations. I don't know how he can make that statement on October 22, 1999, and today and yesterday make the statement that he wants to extend incentives for natural gas exploration. Where is it going to come from? I certainly don't know where it is going to come from. I could go on and on and identify each one of these, where there is an inconsistency. But the fact is, his program, at a cost of $75 billion to $80 billion over 10 years, supposedly from the surplus, is not going to do a single thing today to reduce gasoline prices. So what are we going to do? How are we going to relate to this? I think it is fair to say the Vice President misses the point. To borrow a phrase from the Clinton administration: It is the gasoline prices, stupid. We are paying more for gasoline than at any other time in our history. That is the fact. Gasoline and natural gas prices have doubled. Do you remember last March, we were paying $10, $11, $12 a barrel? Today we are paying $32 a barrel. Natural gas, which is assumed to be a godsend, our relief, has gone from $2.65 per thousand cubic feet to $4.56 for deliveries in January. The American consumer has not felt this, but they will. And there will be a reaction. Wait until people start getting their gas bills around this country--not just their gas bill but their electric bill, because a good deal of the electricity is generated from gas. So the Vice President wants to radically change the domestic energy industry in the future and he wants to spend $75 billion to $85 billion to do it. Think about the conventional sources of energy and the administration's position. Coal? They oppose coal. They oppose advanced technology, clean coal, expansion of the coal mines, expansion of the generation from coal. They have already identified nine plants they propose to close and it is a dispute whether the managers of these plants have purposely extended the life of the plants or, as the management says, in order to maintain the plants to the permits they have had to do certain improvements. They oppose hydro. Their proposal is to tear down the hydro dams out West. There is a tradeoff there. The tradeoff is that you put more trucks on the highway if you do away with the barge transportation system on the Columbia River. It is not just a few more trucks on the highway; it is several hundred thousand because the barges are the most effective way to move volumes of tonnage. They oppose nuclear--no nuclear. They oppose oil and gas drilling, as indicated by the comments of the Vice President. I think it is fair to say Vice President Al Gore is OPEC's best friend because in reality the only answer they have is to propose to import more energy. Where are we getting that energy? Saudi Arabia and another country, which I find really gets my attention in the sense of being indignant. I guess I might say I am outraged. A few years ago, in 1991 and 1992, we fought a war in Iraq--Desert Storm. We lost 147 lives in that war. We had roughly 427 men and women who were wounded in that conflict. We had 23 taken prisoner. Since that time, we have enforced a no-fly zone over Iraq. That no-fly zone is an aerial blockade, if you will. It has cost the American taxpayer over $10 billion to enforce. Yet, from time to time, we launch a sortie to fly over Iraq, where they violated the no-fly zone. We drop bombs on various targets near Baghdad. This is part of our foreign policy. Perhaps I can simplify this. It seems to me we buy their oil. The interesting thing is we start out with 50,000 barrels a day. Last year it was 300,000 a day. Today it is 750,000 barrels a day. We buy the oil, send Saddam Hussein the money. Then we put the oil in our airplanes and we go bomb him. Maybe it is more complicated than that. There are a few people who are unfortunate victims. Saddam Hussein holds up a press release and says: The Americans and the British have killed so many Iraqi citizens. That obviously rallies his people around him and the vicious circle starts again. That is where we are getting our greatest single increase of oil-- from Iraq, a country where it wasn't so long ago we were sacrificing lives. It is from a tyrant who obviously is using the money he is getting from the oil he smuggles to develop his missile technology and his biological warfare capability. Clearly, he is up to no good and represents a significant threat to the Mideast and Israel as well, without question. Here we have an administration, a Vice President, who has no real relief in sight. He has a 10-year program costing $80 billion that is not going to provide the American consumer with any cheaper gasoline tomorrow, the next day, next week, next month, or next year. But what the Vice President proposes is designing your future but ignoring the crisis at the pump. The Vice President wants the Government to tell you what energy you are going to use and what price you are going to pay for it. That is basically what we are doing with reformulated gasoline. We have refineries now customizing gasoline because the Environmental Protection Agency has mandated certain formulas in various parts of the country. I am not here to debate the merits. But the reality is, it costs money. Why does it cost money? For a lot of reasons. We have lost some of our regional refiners. We have lost 37 refiners in this country, under Clinton-Gore, two administrations, 8 years. The refineries have not been replaced. We have not had a new refinery in this country for 10 years. Why? There are a lot of reasons. One is there is an inadequate return on investment. Another reason is that the permitting takes so long. The third is the potential Superfund sites; they are just not an attractive investment. So we have constricted ourselves, we have put on more regulations, and the price is being passed on to the consumer. While I applaud the Vice President for recognizing that American ingenuity and technology should drive future energy demands, the reality is that unless we increase our domestic supply, we are going to continue to have shortages and higher prices. The alternatives to that are not very bright from the standpoint of any immediate relief. I am going to also make a reference to an article in the Washington Times, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The title of the article is, ``Occidental Deal Benefits Gores.'' I don't begrudge the Gores or any families having any investment. What I do begrudge is the realization that the Vice President has lashed out and attacked big oil. I am not here to defend big oil. As chairman of the Energy Committee, we are having a hearing. We are going to invite the various oil companies and refiners to come in and explain to us why prices have gone up and what the future is likely to hold. It is fair to point out Vice President Al Gore has been linking George W. Bush to big oil. I am not here to separate that, but as this article points out, the Vice President's efforts to push to privatize Elk Hills, which was a Federal oilfield in California, added a good deal--as a matter of fact, hundreds of thousands of dollars--to the Gore family estate fund. This was the Occidental Petroleum that bought Elk Hills. Occidental's profits soared, and, of course, the Gore family stock in the company went from a listing of roughly $250,000 to $500,000, up to $1 million, as a consequence of the privatization of Elk Hills. Again, I do not begrudge the Vice President and his family making a fair return on an appropriate investment. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But those who live in glass houses should not take baths. In this case, that fits the position of the Vice President. Finally, I spoke on the floor Friday about the energy crisis we are having. I talked about the Clinton-Gore energy policy, or lack of it. After I spoke, my good friend from Iowa made some observations and statements about energy policy that I think warrant some consideration. I am going to take the time, with the indulgence of the occupant of the chair, to respond. We do two things in Alaska well: We harvest timber, and we harvest fish. We do not have a great deal of agriculture potential. We do some hay, potatoes, barley, and oats, but we have a short season. Fish and timber we do well. So I know something about fish and timber. I do not know much about corn. I do know quite a little bit about energy, as chairman of the Energy Committee. After reading the statement of the Senator from Iowa, I think a few of his observations deserve a little closer examination. The Senator suggested our investment in ethanol production, in hydrogen, fuel cell research, and renewable energy has been minimal. He said: We need to get a few million dollars in for the use of hydrogen in fuel cells and fuel cell research. Again, the reference I made earlier to what we have expended speaks for itself. What we have expended in these areas is truly not insignificant. It is a major expenditure in the area of over $20 billion overall in renewables. As a consequence of that, indeed, the Senator from Iowa would agree, we have been expending a good deal in these areas of promoting renewables. As a member of the Senate renewable and energy efficiency caucus, I am a supporter of ethanol production, hydrogen, fuel cell research, and renewable energy. To support hydrogen research, I moved through my committee and into law the Hydrogen Future Act which is Public Law 104- 271. It was originally introduced in the House by Bob Walker and authorized the hydrogen research, development, and demonstrations programs of the Department of Energy. In the nearly 5 years that have passed since that time, we have spent over $100 million on hydrogen and fuel cell research in the Department of Energy. Over the past 5 years, we have spent another $1.5 billion for renewable energy research and development, $330 million of which has gone for biomass research, including ethanol. To support renewable wind energy, I have supported as a member of the Finance Committee a production tax credit for investments in wind energy. To support renewable biomass energy, I have supported the repeal of the ``closed loop'' rule for the biomass energy tax credit in an effort to boost biomass energy production, including ethanol. I am also a cosponsor of Senator Lugar's biofuels research bill, S. 935, which passed this body. To support the deployment of distributed renewable energy, I have worked to make Alaska a test bed for many of these technologies. Alaska has scores of small communities that are not on a consolidated electric grid. We are exploring the use of wind turbines, fuel cells, and other technologies to displace the expensive diesel fuel currently used in these communities because these are the technologies that will make sense in a developing world of energy. These are all areas that are very important in the effort to decrease our imports of foreign energy and protect our environment, and I do support them personally, as well as in my position as chairman of the Energy Committee. Senator Harkin's contention that we ``need to get a few million dollars'' for research in these areas suggests we are not making these investments when, in fact, we are. I did not want any of my colleagues or America to be misled. Talking about gasoline prices again, Senator Harkin also encouraged me, as chairman of the Energy Committee, to subpoena oil company executives, to put them before my committee and start asking the ``tough questions'' in an effort to get to the bottom of the high prices. Indeed, my staff and I had already been planning and have planned a hearing on gasoline prices to include representatives from the industry and the administration. We made that decision several days ago. That hearing, as announced, will be held on Thursday, July 13, at 9:30 a.m. At that time, we plan to explore issues of gasoline supply problems and ask if deliverability, transportation, refining, and blending resources are adequate to supply our near-term and long-term gasoline needs. It is a matter of supply and demand. The supply is down, the demand is up. But it may interest my friend from Iowa to know that subpoenas are unlikely to be necessary for the oil companies or their representatives. When our committee asks them to appear, they appear. They answer the questions asked of them, and I am not anticipating any problem with the oil companies responding to our questions. On the other hand, I think you would agree, sometimes we do have problems with the administration. Secretary Richardson recently found it inconvenient to appear before our committee on the Los Alamos matter. So there is some doubt he will show up to answer, as Senator Harkin puts it, the tough questions. We are considering asking the EPA Administrator, who is responsible pretty much for the reformulation of gasoline around the country, where the refineries are now customizing, and that would be EPA Administrator Carol Browner. There is some question she will appear. She may be worried the reformulated gasoline requirements have, in fact, balkanized the market and driven prices up. That might make her inclined not to attend. While the Senator from Iowa said in his remarks Friday that reformulated gasolines were ``not the problem,'' I am personally not so sure of that. Consider the following facts: Under the Environmental Protection Agency regulations, fuel made for consumption in Oregon is not suitable for California's consumption. Fuel made for distribution in western Maryland cannot be sold in Baltimore. Areas such as Chicago and Detroit are islands in the fuel system, requiring special ``designer'' gasolines. Gasoline sold in Springfield cannot be sold in Chicago. A recent Energy Information Agency report observed that an eastern U.S. pipeline operator handles 38 different grades of gasoline, 7 grades of kerosene, and 16 grades of home heating oil and diesel fuel. Between Chicago and St. Louis, a 300-mile distance--think of this-- four different grades of gasoline are required. Is that necessary? I am not here to debate that point, but I am here to tell you that it all costs money and the consumer pays for it. It is estimated that reformulated gasoline costs an average of 50 cents more a gallon for the reasons I have outlined. The predictable result is refiners lack the flexibility to move supplies around the country to respond to local or regional shortages. Again, I advise the President that 37 refineries have closed. No new ones have opened. Why? I think the answer is obvious. These are among the questions we will explore in our hearing, and I hope we will have good cooperation from the industry and good cooperation from the Clinton-Gore administration. There are a few things we do know before the hearing. Even before we convene the hearing, here is what we already know. Americans are now paying more for their gasoline than at any other time in history. Our dependency on foreign oil is at an all-time high-- higher than any other time in history. Again, we fought a war 9 years ago over threats to our oil supply. I have indicated the loss of life we have had, the prisoners who were taken, and those who were wounded. Further, domestic oil production is down 17 percent since the start of the Clinton-Gore administration. I think it is important for Members to recognize we have a little history to indicate why we are in this predicament. We will almost assuredly have brownouts this summer when energy usage exceeds energy supply. That is because the Clinton-Gore administration has actively curtailed domestic energy production in all forms in virtually all areas of this country. For 8 years, President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been warned that our foreign oil consumption was increasing and our domestic oil production was decreasing. One can only assume they chose to ignore the warnings, and now we have record prices for gas and home heating oil. This is a problem of leadership. Both the President and the Vice President and my good friend, Senator Harkin from Iowa in a speech, suggested that the oil companies are to blame. It is the blame game played around Washington, DC, all the time. And maybe the oil companies are partially responsible. I am not ruling that out. But leadership is not assessing blame. Leadership is about preventing the crisis before it happens. Sadly, the crisis is here, and Americans are paying the price. Perhaps even worse, the most powerful Nation on Earth--the most powerful Nation in the history of the world--is at the mercy of a handful of oil-producing nations because we are not producing our own domestic resources. Where would we get them? We have the Rocky Mountain overthrust belt all around Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, and other areas. We have the OCS off the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, and my State of Alaska. We have the resources here. There is absolutely no question about it. We have the technology. We also have an administration that would much rather send the Secretary of Energy overseas to beg for increased production from OPEC and from Saddam Hussein than generate domestic oil production here at home where we are assured we would have a continued supply. We could keep the jobs here and the dollars here. If we were willing to fight for oil supply in the Persian Gulf, we ought to be willing to drill for it domestically here in the United States. I talked about what the Vice President has said about this. I have noted the Vice President's sudden interest, as expressed on his campaign trail, about the prices paid by gasoline consumers, and again, his suggestions that the oil companies are to blame. Surely this cannot be the same Vice President Gore who cast the tiebreaking vote for higher gasoline taxes in this Senate body. Surely this is not the same Vice President who wrote in his book, ``Earth in the Balance,'' that: ``Higher taxes on fossil fuels . . . is one of the logical first steps in changing our policies in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment.'' Perhaps the Vice President doesn't have to buy gas as the rest of us, but someone needs to tell him that raising taxes on gasoline only hurts hard-working Americans. In summary, to conclude, I think the energy policy of the Clinton- Gore administration can be summed up in a single word. That word is ``no''--no domestic oil exploration or production, no use of coal, no use of nuclear power, no use of hydroelectric power, no to increasing supplies of natural gas, and no to new oil refineries. We have a better idea; that is, the National Energy Security Act of 2000, introduced by Senator Lott, myself, and others because it encourages domestic production, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other energy resources, with the goal of decreasing our oil imports to a level below 50 percent. We have a goal in our energy policy, in our Republican plan. Ask the Clinton-Gore administration what their energy policy is, what their goal is. As I see it, it is an $80 billion expenditure on renewables coming about in 10 years, when today, if you exclude hydro, only 4 percent of our energy comes from renewables. I wish there were more. Anyway, this is the kind of balanced approach that I think will keep energy supplies stable and affordable for America. I urge my colleagues to support the National Energy Security Act of 2000, which was raised here on the floor the other day and the leader assures me is pending. I thank the occupant of the chair and the clerks for prevailing at this late hour. I have been asked to close the Senate today. So with their indulgence, I will proceed. My reason for keeping you here tonight, obviously so late, is the inability to get floor time in morning business because of the accelerated schedule. So I hope you will understand.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2801 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 328, introduced earlier today by Senators Landrieu and Breaux.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 611, S. Res. 277,

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on June 27, 2000, by the President of the United States: Extradition Treaty with Sri Lanka (Treaty Document No. 106-34). Further, I ask unanimous consent the treaty be considered as having been read for the first time, that it be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are pending amendments before the body that are going to be taken up as soon as the Members arrive to offer them. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3658 (Purpose: To fund a coordinated national effort to prevent, detect, and educate the public concerning Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect and to identify effective interventions for children, adolescents, and adults with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect)

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. MURKOWSKI pertaining to the introduction of S. 2799 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')