Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Campbell and Senator Abraham today in introducing legislation that will ease the burden that the American motorist is facing every time he or she fills up at the gas pump. Those of us who are going to the gas pumps lately know that we are starting to see gas prices at an all-time high. We have never had gas prices approaching $1.75, which is the standard price for regular gasoline in the United States today. Our legislation recognizes that many consumers are facing a gasoline emergency. They use their cars to get to work, drive to day care, and take their children to summer school. Suddenly they are finding that filling up the family car's gas tank is costing $50 to $70 or even $100 in some parts of the country. And in an America where the Clinton-Gore administration has done its best for seven years to increase America's dependence on OPEC, the American public was lulled by the Administration into believing that gas prices would always remain stable and cheap. The result: Nearly 50 percent of all vehicles sold are low-mileage sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Earlier this year, I co-sponsored legislation that would have temporarily repealed the 4.3 cent gas tax increase that was enacted in 1993 with Vice President Al Gore's tie-breaking vote. Many Senators expressed concern that a temporary repeal of the tax would affect the highway construction program. Although our legislation resolved that problem, all Democrats and a few Republicans rejected providing gas tax relief and the measure was defeated. This is a new concept in one sense. But it does not establish a precedent. The bill I am introducing is to temporarily reduce the burden of all gasoline taxes on the American motorist. The bill will allow individuals and families to take an above-the-line deduction on their income that they pay taxes on for gasoline taxes incurred between July 1 and December 31 of the year 2000. This means every taxpayer who drives will be able to take advantage of the tax deduction from his or her income tax. The deduction of gasoline taxes is not a new idea. Up until 1978, motorists could deduct the State and local gasoline taxes if they itemized those taxes. Legislation I have introduced today goes a step further by also permitting the deduction of Federal gasoline taxes, and it is an inclusive tax deduction since it will allow itemizers and nonitemizers to claim these taxes. For example, if we adopt this measure, and a family in my State of Alaska has a car that gets 20 miles per gallon and they drive perhaps 9,000 miles in the next 6 months, they will get a $118 tax deduction; the same family in Michigan will get a $195 tax deduction; a family in Colorado will receive a $181 tax deduction. Some detractors say citizens will have to itemize returns. Most people go to self-service gas stations where a receipt is provided. I think most Americans would welcome this $195 or $181 tax deduction. I don't think it is too much to ask motorists. The IRS will surely draft some easy-to-use tables that will list by State the total gasoline tax burden. I have an example of what the tables look like. I ask unanimous consent that gas tax tables prepared by the American Petroleum Institute be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the average national price of unleaded regular gasoline is anywhere from $1.70 to $1.80 today. This weekend begins the summer driving season. Gasoline prices could well go above $2 a gallon in many parts of the country. As we know, they are already over $2.30 in Chicago, Milwaukee, and other areas. Our proposal is a modest attempt to help the American family cope with these extraordinary price rises. This isn't going to solve the problem of high gasoline prices. We could have solved that problem 5 or 6 years ago if we would have adopted the 1995 budget which permitted drilling in America's most promising new oil area, the sliver of the Arctic Coastal Plain, but President Clinton vetoed that bill, surely with the concurrence of Vice President Gore. So today we are dependent as never before on imported oil. The result is the record gasoline prices. I ask unanimous consent the text of the Emergency Fuel Act of 2000 and the previously referenced tax tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Campbell and Senator Abraham today in introducing legislation that will ease the burden that the American motorist is facing every time he or she fills up at the gas pump. Those of us who are going to the gas pumps lately know that we are starting to see gas prices at an all-time high. We have never had gas prices approaching $1.75, which is the standard price for regular gasoline in the United States today. Our legislation recognizes that many consumers are facing a gasoline emergency. They use their cars to get to work, drive to day care, and take their children to summer school. Suddenly they are finding that filling up the family car's gas tank is costing $50 to $70 or even $100 in some parts of the country. And in an America where the Clinton-Gore administration has done its best for seven years to increase America's dependence on OPEC, the American public was lulled by the Administration into believing that gas prices would always remain stable and cheap. The result: Nearly 50 percent of all vehicles sold are low-mileage sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Earlier this year, I co-sponsored legislation that would have temporarily repealed the 4.3 cent gas tax increase that was enacted in 1993 with Vice President Al Gore's tie-breaking vote. Many Senators expressed concern that a temporary repeal of the tax would affect the highway construction program. Although our legislation resolved that problem, all Democrats and a few Republicans rejected providing gas tax relief and the measure was defeated. This is a new concept in one sense. But it does not establish a precedent. The bill I am introducing is to temporarily reduce the burden of all gasoline taxes on the American motorist. The bill will allow individuals and families to take an above-the-line deduction on their income that they pay taxes on for gasoline taxes incurred between July 1 and December 31 of the year 2000. This means every taxpayer who drives will be able to take advantage of the tax deduction from his or her income tax. The deduction of gasoline taxes is not a new idea. Up until 1978, motorists could deduct the State and local gasoline taxes if they itemized those taxes. Legislation I have introduced today goes a step further by also permitting the deduction of Federal gasoline taxes, and it is an inclusive tax deduction since it will allow itemizers and nonitemizers to claim these taxes. For example, if we adopt this measure, and a family in my State of Alaska has a car that gets 20 miles per gallon and they drive perhaps 9,000 miles in the next 6 months, they will get a $118 tax deduction; the same family in Michigan will get a $195 tax deduction; a family in Colorado will receive a $181 tax deduction. Some detractors say citizens will have to itemize returns. Most people go to self-service gas stations where a receipt is provided. I think most Americans would welcome this $195 or $181 tax deduction. I don't think it is too much to ask motorists. The IRS will surely draft some easy-to-use tables that will list by State the total gasoline tax burden. I have an example of what the tables look like. I ask unanimous consent that gas tax tables prepared by the American Petroleum Institute be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the average national price of unleaded regular gasoline is anywhere from $1.70 to $1.80 today. This weekend begins the summer driving season. Gasoline prices could well go above $2 a gallon in many parts of the country. As we know, they are already over $2.30 in Chicago, Milwaukee, and other areas. Our proposal is a modest attempt to help the American family cope with these extraordinary price rises. This isn't going to solve the problem of high gasoline prices. We could have solved that problem 5 or 6 years ago if we would have adopted the 1995 budget which permitted drilling in America's most promising new oil area, the sliver of the Arctic Coastal Plain, but President Clinton vetoed that bill, surely with the concurrence of Vice President Gore. So today we are dependent as never before on imported oil. The result is the record gasoline prices. I ask unanimous consent the text of the Emergency Fuel Act of 2000 and the previously referenced tax tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, with no intervening action.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, turning to the Executive Calendar, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Executive Calendar Nos. 544, 545, 546, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 564, the nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Coast Guard and, finally, all the military nominations reported by the Armed Services Committee during today's session. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 28. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the Hutchison and Daschle amendments to the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I further ask unanimous consent that a vote occur in relation to the Hutchison amendment at 9:45, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Daschle amendment, with 4 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote and that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the votes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. For the information of all Senators, on Wednesday, the Senate will resume consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill at 9:30 a.m. Under the previous order, there will be closing remarks on the Hutchison amendment regarding same-sex schools with a vote in relation to the amendment to occur at approximately 9:45 a.m. Following that vote, the Senate will proceed to a vote in relation to the Daschle amendment regarding fetal alcohol. After the votes, the Senate will continue debate on amendments as they are offered. Senators can anticipate votes throughout the day with the expectation of completing action on the bill during tomorrow's session.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

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 Thursday, July 13 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 Gasoline Supply Problems: Are deliverability, transportation, and refining/ blending resources adequate to supply America at a reasonable price? For further information, please call Dan Kish at 202-224-8276 or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-4756.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business for a time not to exceed 20 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today to offer my congratulations and thanks to my Chief of Staff, David Kline Garman, who has dedicated his entire life to public service. Today, in fact, marks the 20th anniversary of David's service in the United States Senate. David's public service career began even before he came to the Senate. While attending Duke University in the 1970s, he participated in Naval ROTC and during the summer of 1976 he served with the naval amphibious task force which rescued American Nationals from Beirut during the Civil War in Lebanon. After graduating with Honors from Duke in 1979, he served in the Peace Corps working on rural water supply projects in Nepal. He came to the Senate on June 23, 1980 to work as an intern with Senator Richard Dick'' Stone (D-Florida), beginning in the Senator's mail room and working his way up to assist on defense, finance, banking and energy issues. After David attended the Democratic Convention in 1980, he began to reconsider his political affiliation and on the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981, David joined my staff to serve as Legislative Aide on defense and foreign relations. He was soon promoted to Legislative Assistant for energy and natural resources. In addition to his legislative expertise, David is extremely knowledgeable in the nuts and bolts of high technology. In the late 1980s he became Founding Coordinator for the U.S. Senate Microcomputer Users Group. This group was instrumental in changing Senate technology policy so that each office could decide what type of computer system it would utilize. Previously, Senate offices could only use a system selected by the Senate Computer Center. David's broad range of intellectual interests led me to select him to join the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when I was a Member of the Committee. He played a key role in the development of ``environmental intelligence'' capabilities in the intelligence community and at the national laboratories. Some of David's best work occurred when he joined the staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He was responsible for environmental issues, including the Clean Air Act, Global Climate Change Policy, energy R&D and Arctic Research, Science and Technology policy. While David worked incredibly long hours on highly technical policy issues at the Energy Committee, he went to school at night and in 1997 earned a Master of Science in Environmental Sciences at Johns Hopkins University. That I consider a very noteworthy achievement. Despite his many hours of work and study, David did find the time to meet a beautiful woman, Kira Finkler, and her lovely daughter Bonnie. Kira, who works on the Minority staff of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee did not allow energy policy differences to stand in the way of their relationsip. They were married in December of 1998. By this time, I had asked David to move from the Energy Committee and become my Chief of Staff. And as all Senators know, this is about the hardest job there is in a Senate office, because it is the Chief of Staff who has to get the trains to run on time. David does a superb job and I am deeply grateful to him for how well he does his job. I encourage his friends to join me in celebrating and recognizing this 20th anniversary. As anyone can tell, David is a highly versatile and intelligent person who can handle almost any responsibility given to him. There are few people I know who are as capable as David. In addition to all of his substantive knowledge, David is a superb, outstanding speech writer, although he didn't write this speech. Some of the best speeches I have given were written by David. Mr. President, there is a huge turnover of the staff on Capitol Hill. That reflects the long hours, modest pay and economically rewarding opportunities available in Washington's private sector. It is rare to find such an incredibly dedicated public policy servant as David Garman and I salute him today for 20 extraordinary years of service in the Senate and to the American people.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to talk a little bit about a topic that is in the newspapers today and that has been all week; that is, the crisis concerning energy and our gasoline price structure currently prevalent throughout the country. I think it is fair to go back and evaluate what has happened over the last 8 years in the Clinton/Gore administration. I think it is obvious to all that the answer to our energy shortage by the Clinton administration is pretty much to put our economic destiny in the hands of the foreign oil price-fixing cartel because their answer to the shortage has been to increase oil imports and decrease domestic production. The first time we saw this crisis coming was a few months ago. The reaction of the administration was to send the Secretary of Energy, Secretary Richardson, almost with a tin cup, to beg OPEC to increase their oil production. That was the answer. The success of that effort is somewhat limited when you recognize that there is more pressure throughout the world to utilize oil. A consequence of that, of course, is the realization that the Asian economy is coming back, which is putting more pressure for oil in that part of the world. We found our reserves substantially lower as a consequence of the cold winter and an inadequate supply of heating oil. While we had this situation developing, it was quite evident what was going to happen behind the supply and demand curve. The demand was greater than the supply. We were pulling down our reserves faster than we were replacing them. It is kind of interesting to see the ``blame game'' that is going on in Washington. The administration is blaming the price increase on the oil companies, and on the refiners--on anyone but themselves; on anyone other than recognizing that the Clinton/Gore administration has not really had an energy policy that has been identifiable. The first graphic explanation is going back to a time a few years ago when the Vice President came to the Chamber and broke a tie vote to establish a 4.3 cent-per-gallon gas tax. That, I think, can certainly be reflected on as the ``Gore gas tax.'' Following that, we saw a series of activities by the administration that hardly would relieve the coming shortage that was evident, even at that time. The administration has taken vast areas of the Rocky Mountain overthrust belt off limits to energy exploration. These are areas where there is a high potential for oil and gas discoveries--Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. And other States were simply taken off limits. It is estimated that 64 percent of those areas have been removed. There are areas in the Continental Shelf that they put off limits to energy exploration. Furthermore, the Vice President, in a statement made in Louisiana, stated that if he were elected President, he would pursue a policy of no more leases if anyone even attempted to thwart existing leases that have been issued. During that timeframe, the administration vetoed legislation to open up the small sliver of the Arctic Coastal Plain where reserves had been estimated as high as 16 billion barrels. That is just in my State of Alaska. It is estimated that if indeed the potential reserves were there, it would replace our current imports from Saudi Arabia over a period of 30 years. Further, the administration has put domestic energy reserves off limits through a unilateral designation of new national monuments under the Antiquities Act. It is a pretty simple equation. Domestic production is down 17 percent, and imports are up 14 percent. We talk about rising gasoline prices in various areas of the country. We have talked about the refineries, and why they can't address this and continue with an uninterrupted supply at a relatively low price. What the administration doesn't tell you is the reality--that the Environmental Protection Agency, through mandates, has caused a significant increase associated with the mandate for reformulated gasoline. Who pays the price associated for this reformulated gasoline? Why is it so high? It is kind of interesting. When you go through the State of Illinois and the State of Wisconsin, you are made aware that as of June 1 there was a mandate by the Environmental Protection Agency that reformulated gasoline containing ethanol replacing MTBE be established. That costs roughly 50 cents more a gallon. You cannot use the same gasoline in Springfield, IL, that you would use in Chicago, IL, because of the policies of the EPA. I am not going to debate the merits of the regulation. But I will debate the reality that these regulations cost money because they require customizing, if you will, of the gasoline and the refining process. It is kind of interesting to also note that we have lost 36 refineries in this country in the last decade. They haven't built a new refinery in almost 25 years. Why not? Obviously, it is not a very attractive business to get into, or the oil companies would be moving into it. They are moving out of them. The reason: It takes decades; in some cases not that long, but several years to get permits. The permitting process is legitimate. But if you can't basically get there from here, you are going to have very little interest in pursuing refineries. I think it is fair to say that the administration's overzealous policies are responsible for closing some 36 regional refineries. The fact that no new ones have opened during the 8 years under the Clinton/ Gore administration is a valid, understandable, legitimate reason as to why we are seeing gasoline prices in regional areas mandated by new policies from EPA prevail. The Vice President can try to shift the blame to the oil companies for higher prices, but let's not forget that he personally cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate for higher gasoline prices. To attempt to counteract that, we have a firm policy that is introduced in legislation which is the Republican energy production proposal for the year 2000. We recognize what has happened in this country. Today, the average price of gasoline is $1.68 per gallon. In the Midwest, the average is $1.87. The only way to address this responsibly is through a series of incentives that not only stimulate domestic production by opening up the overthrust belt, by opening up areas in the coastal OCS area, opening up areas in the arctic where we are likely to find significant discoveries, but have a goal in the legislation. The goal is to reduce dependence upon imports to less than 50 percent in a 10-year period of time. In the Vice President's book ``Earth in the Balance,'' on page 73, he identifies ``higher taxes on fossil fuels . . . is one of the logical first steps in changing our policy in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment''; that is, taxing higher fuels to discourage people from using fuels. He further says it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a 25-year period. The implications of that, of the Vice President encouraging high costs to address perhaps the elimination of the internal combustion engine, or his belief, if indeed it is his belief, that higher taxes on fossil fuel is one of the first steps in changing our policies, certainly is occurring. However, let's be realistic and recognize in this country our transportation system depends on oil. Don't expect modest OPEC increases to bring prices down at the pump. As we have seen in this last announcement by an increase in OPEC of 700,000 barrels a day, the market sophistication has already made a judgment. The judgment is that prices are going to continue to rise. Right after this announcement, west Texas medium crude rose 72 cents Wednesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up an additional 28 cents by the afternoon, where contracts for August delivery were $31.65 a barrel. Last year at this time, oil was selling for about $12 to $14 a barrel. If there are those who were misled by the assumption that energy was going to substantially be increased by this OPEC announcement, remember that 700,000 barrels a day does not come to the United States alone. Our share of that is 15 percent. That is only 109,000 barrels a day. In the District of Columbia, we consume 121,000 barrels a day, to give a comparison. The last OPEC production increase in March, which was to produce a 1.7 million-barrel increase, may have yielded roughly 500,000 barrels due to cheating on production overquota. As we look to the future, it is amusing to recognize that the administration has now come out with what it referred to as a detailed blueprint for congressional action. Mind you, they are asking, now, for congressional action. The President has called on Congress to pass a proposal to encourage more stripper well production. First, we don't have a proposal. There is no legislation set up. We have in the Republican package, a proposal to increase stripper well production. But now the President is saying we need to get some of these American wells back in operation. Where has he been? We have been trying to encourage the administration to support legislation that would put in place a foreign ceiling. They have not proposed any. And now he is saying he has a program. Where is it, Mr. President? He says we need to get some of these things back in operation. He further states that Congress is not reauthorizing Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He went into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve the other day as a consequence of an accident on the Mississippi River to keep refinery production going. He didn't ask us for authority. He has the authority. He knows he has the authority. This is another smokescreen. We look at his concern over the supply in the Northeast corridor this coming winter. What has he done about the supply to increase it? Absolutely nothing. He has no plan, no proposal, no increased production. The President or the Vice President or his advisers simply do not understand the reality that this is a supply and demand issue. Unless we increase the supply, we are going to have shortages. That is evident by what we are seeing in the paper. We have $2.33, $2.40, and $2.49 a gallon for gasoline in this country. This particular headline suggests that the gas price rise shakes Democrats. The reason it shakes the Democrats, and the reason this is a partisan issue, is because the Democrats and the administration simply have no plan and have not had a plan associated with the energy shortage that is occurring in this country today. As I come to the Senate floor today to address this matter and reflect on how we are going to correct it, the simple response is that we are going to have to increase our supplies, and we will have to do it dramatically and in a timely manner. If we don't do that, we are going to continue to see an increase in the price of oil, and an increased dependence on imports. One of the frustrating things about the continued dependence on imports is from where those imports are coming. Last year, we imported about 300,000 barrels of crude oil from Iraq. This year we are importing about 750,000 barrels from Iraq. A lot of people perhaps have forgotten we fought a war over there in 1991 and 1992. We lost 147 lives. We had roughly 427 wounded, 23 were taken prisoner. Today, what we are doing, and this is where I am critical of our foreign policy, for all practical purposes, we are buying his oil, sending him our dollars, taking his oil, putting it in our airplanes, and going over and bombing. What kind of a foreign policy is that? It is just about that simple. Not very complex. He is making a press release every time we bomb saying, here is how many people Americans killed in my country. He waves that around and generates more support. The dollars we are paying go to the Republican Guards for his safety and protection. And he is smuggling oil out, in addition to that which is under the auspices of the United Nations. What is he doing with the generation of funds from the smuggling of the oil? He is building up his arsenal, his capability with missiles, his capability with the biological weaponry. Here is a very bad man out there. And we are supporting his regime because we are becoming more dependent on him as a source of oil. What does that do to strengthening stability in the Middle East? It is pretty hard to say, but it certainly represents a threat against Israel. It is well known, the disposition of Iraq and Saddam Hussein relative to the threat against Israel and the peace we all hope will come to the Middle East. I could go on at great length. I see other Senators desiring to discuss various matters. It is my intention as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to put together in this next week a chronology of certain portions of our negative exposure, if you will. One is on gasoline prices, one is on refinery operations, one is on the availability and continued uninterrupted supply of natural gas. The other is the delivery system within our electric power industry and our transmission grids. It is appropriate we start preparing ourselves for a train wreck that is going to come. We are seeing it in gasoline prices as a consequence of shortage of crude oil. We are going to see it spread, as we see in the northeastern part of the Nation which is so dependent on oil for the generation of electricity, as the summer warms up. Last year they were paying $10 and $11 a barrel for oil. This year they are going to be paying over $30. The electrical rates in the Northeast corridor are going to go up dramatically. They thought they had higher rates for fuel oil last year. They have not seen anything yet. We are going to have brownouts this year because the capacity of the transmission lines, for all practical purposes, is just about at their maximum in certain areas. Why haven't we built more transmission lines? FERC has been sitting for 3 years on a rate case, a rate case that is going to make a determination of whether or not it is financially beneficial for the investment in transmission lines in the sense they can recover their investment. What about natural gas? The electric industry is moving into the area more and more and converting to natural gas, but while the supply of natural gas is abundant, we are now pulling down our reserves. Last year, our reserves were about 160 trillion cubic feet; this year, they are about 150. We are using more gas than we are finding. We are using currently about 20 trillion cubic feet. The estimate is about 30 to 35 in the next 10 years. We are not finding a replacement. So we are going to have a crunch in natural gas, and natural gas is going to go up. It is estimated the industry is going to have to spend $1.5 trillion to put in new infrastructure for delivery into various parts of the country. From where is the capital going to come? It is only going to come if they get an adequate return on their investment; otherwise, they are not going to build the pipelines. This whole thing is coming to a head. The American people are beginning to wake up a little bit. The administration is beginning to point the blame to industry, to Congress, to the refiners, to anybody but themselves, because this administration has not had an energy policy of any consequence, as evidenced by the President's statement that suddenly he is concerned and suddenly he sends something to Congress--if we can identify just what this is he sent up--calling on Congress to pass a variety of administrative proposals. They do not say what the proposals are. He is a little late. It is like somebody fiddling while Rome burned.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have been asked by the leader to file a number of amendments as an amendment to the underlying Labor-HHS bill. The amendment is the Republican energy security package. I ask unanimous consent that it be so filed. I appreciate the willingness of the leader to file the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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 purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony from representatives of the United States General Accounting Office on their investigation of the Cerro Grande Fire in the State of New Mexico, and from Federal agencies on the Cerro Grande Fire and their fire policies in general. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 20, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Kevin Clark of the committee staff at (202) 224-6969. committee on energy and natural resources subcommittee on water and power

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today to congratulate three exceptional teachers in Alaska--Douglas Heetderks of Anchorage, Lura Hegg of Palmer, and Gretchen Murphy of Fairbanks. President Clinton named these Alaskans as recipients of the 1999 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. This is our Nation's highest honor for mathematics and science teachers in grades K through 12. Each year, a national panel of distinguished scientists, mathematicians and educators recommends one elementary and one secondary math teacher and one elementary and one secondary science teacher from each state or territory to receive a presidential award. The 1999 recipients were selected from among 650 finalists. The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching Program is administered by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on behalf of the White House. The program was established in 1983 and is designed to recognize and reward outstanding teachers. In addition to a presidential citation and a trip to Washington, DC, each recipient's school receives a NSF grant of $7,500 to be used under the direction of the teacher, to supplement other resources for improving science or mathematics programs in their school system. Douglas Heetderks, Lura Hegg and Gretchen Murphy are exceptional and highly dedicated teachers. Douglas Heetderks teaches Elementary Science at Susitna Elementary in Anchorage; Lura Hegg teaches Secondary Science at Colony Middle School in Palmer; and Gretchen Murphy teaches Elementary Math at University Park Elementary School in Fairbanks. In addition to having extensive knowledge of math and science, they have demonstrated an understanding of how students learn and have the ability to engage students, foster curiosity and generate excitement. Mr. Heetderks, Ms. Hegg, and Ms. Murphy have displayed an experimental and innovative attitude in their approach to teaching and are highly respected for their leadership. Mr. President, our nation's future depends on today's teachers. Currently, 40 percent of America's 4th graders read below the basic level on national reading tests. On international tests, the nation's 12th 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 to turn these dismal statistics around we are going to need more and talented teachers like Mr. Heetderks, Ms. Hegg and Ms. Murphy. I applaud them for their hard work and dedication to our children. They are educating those who will lead this country in creating, developing, and putting to work new ideas and technology.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the National Hockey League's Rookie of the Year, Scott Gomez of the Stanley Cup champion New Jersey Devils. Scott was born and raised in Anchorage, Alaska and is only the eighteenth Alaskan to play in the National Hockey League and the first to make such a huge impact in his first year. This past Thursday, Scott was awarded the Calder Trophy for best rookie performance in the 1999-2000 season. He led all rookies with 19 goals and 51 assists in 82 regular season games. During the playoffs, he earned 10 points. Past winners of the Calder include Bobby Orr and Ray Bourque. Scott Gomez is an amazing young man. At the age of only 20, he has accomplished his lifelong dream of playing in the National Hockey League and winning the Stanley Cup, all in one year. He was a rising star in Anchorage where he began playing as a child. From very early on, it was evident that he would be a big star in the NHL. He was twice named Player of the Year by the Anchorage Daily News/State Coaches. In his junior year of high school, he led the Alaska All-Stars team, ages 16-17, to the USA Hockey Tier I national championship. After graduating from East High School in Anchorage, Scott played for Team USA in the World Junior Championship. In addition to this, he is the first Latino to play in the NHL. His father, Carlos, is Mexican and his mother, Dalia, is Colombian. Mr. President, Scott Gomez is a wonderful example of a young, talented Alaskan who, I am sure, will continue to impress us all in the years to come.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr President, I rise today to commend a helicopter crew from the Coast Guard Air Station in Sitka, Alaska. These four brave men rescued three fishermen from a fierce storm at sea last November. Pilot Lt. Robert Yerex, co-pilot Lt. James O'Keefe, and Petty Officers Third Class Christian Blanco and Noel Hutton flew their helicopter into 40- to 60-knot winds and pulled three fishermen from 35- to 40-foot high swells. The Coast Guard awarded this intrepid crew the Distinguished Flying Cross, the highest peace time honor that can be awarded, earlier this month. On November 12, 1999, the four-member crew of the Becca Dawn was caught in a storm 160 miles southwest of Sitka, on the coast of Southeast Alaska. The storm caused the 52-foot vessel to begin sinking so quickly the crew had no time to radio a mayday. Instead, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon was triggered. The signal from the beacon was picked up by the Coast Guard and the helicopter crew was immediately sent out. When they arrived, they found the fishermen had already abandoned ship. The storm made the rescue extremely difficult. The gusting winds made it extremely difficult to maintain the helicopter's stability, and blowing snow made visibility extremely low. Once the Coast Guard crew arrived on the scene they pulled up three of the four crew members. This operation took thirty minutes. With winds gusting to 60 knots, the crew of the bucking helicopter became nauseous, but persevered in their search for the missing fourth fisherman in the cold, turbulent water. They only returned to land at the last moment, almost out of fuel, when staying longer would have made them into casualties themselves. Unfortunately, the fourth fisherman was never found and is presumed lost at sea. Obviously, this brand of courage and tenacity is worthy of the Distinguished Flying Cross and I am very proud of my fellow Coast Guardsmen and Alaskans and I congratulate their hard work and dedication. All Coast Guardsmen pride themselves on being ``always ready,'' and these four courageous rescuers showed just what that spirit is all about. I salute them.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is with great honor today that I rise to recognize one of the finest men in the Alaska Army National Guard, Sergeant Edwin D. Irizarry. Sergeant Irizarry's hard work and dedication to the Army National Guard in Alaska have earned him the title of the ``Noncommissioned Officer of the Year.'' Mr. President, this is no small award. It is only awarded to those who show outstanding leadership and extraordinary accomplishments in their duty. Sergeant Irizarry epitomizes the commitment and unselfish honor of the men and women in Alaska's Army National Guard. This is a great honor for Alaska. The commitment to be in the Guard requires an individual to work hard and sacrifice their own personal time to protect the very communities where they live. Sergeant Irizarry lives and works in Ketchikan, with his wife and family. Ketchikan is a beautiful town in southeast Alaska where I was fortunate to have been raised. I know the terrain that the Guard uses is no walk in the park. Mountains and a channel of water hug the town in this great place. To be stationed in Ketchikan one must learn to adapt to the fast changing climate and diverse environment that exists in this region. Ketchikan and Alaska are truly indebted to the many fine soldiers like Sergeant Irizarry who protect and assist in communities throughout the last frontier. Sergeant Irizarry serves as role model and inspiration to the over 300,000 men and women in our country's National Guard. Without the talent and support given to our armed forces by the National Guard and individuals like Sergeant Irizarry, our country would not be where it is today. I take great pride in congratulating Sergeant Irizarry for his Guard career and for being an example for all of us to follow.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to alert my colleagues of the growing concern that we all have relative to climate change and the developing technology associated with that change. This week the U.S. Global Change Research Program issued a revealing and rather startling new report on the consequences of climate change. This report affects a number of things. But the most significant portion of the report is the estimated effects of climate change on various regions of the country and various sectors of our economy. It is very important--agriculture, water resources, and so forth. At the heart of this report are some ``potential scenarios'' of climate change over the next 100 years predicted by two climate models: Computers models that were state of the art 3 years ago when the report began. These ``scenarios'' of climate change were then used to drive other models for vegetation, river flow, and agriculture. Each of these models had its own set of assumptions and limitations. The end result was a 600-page report that paints a rather grim picture of 21st century climate predictions. Some in the environmental community in favor of the Kyoto Protocol are now using this report and shouting from the rooftops. They think this study means we should go forward with drastic measures to limit greenhouse gases. But I want to caution my colleagues to look beyond the rhetoric and to look to the science that underlies this assessment. What they are going to find is rather startling. The realization factually is that we are only just now beginning to conduct the kind of scientific research that will allow us to determine impacts of climate change. My point is obvious. These models were based on technology 3 years ago. Technologies change. Interpretations change. But the basis for the evaluation and generalization is based on old information. For example, a reasonable test of a climate model is whether or not it actually and accurately stimulates today's climate. The fact is that it doesn't. We found from the National Assessment's own science web site a comparison of rainfall predicted by two climate models that measure actual rainfall. The area reflects twice what the model predicts. More than twice as much rainfall is actually observed as opposed to what the model suggests. The emotional concern is coming from the model. Where you actually get 10 inches of rain, the model predicts that you actually get 20 inches, or more. Similarly, in the areas where the model predicts less than half as much rainfall as is actually observed, you actually get 10 inches of rain. The model predicts that you would get 5, or less. So the model is absolutely under question and under scrutiny and doesn't represent reality. The amount of rain or snow falling within a river basin determines the river flow. We all know that determines the amount of water for irrigation of crops, the health of fish species, the generation of hydroelectric power, and the water available for human use. Depending on what the climate models say, you can imagine some very different impacts because the models are off by 50 or 100 percent in either direction. You can see it is going to change. The estimate of impacts from climate change on these sensitive areas could also change. Even with all of this, the assessment has been a very useful exercise because it shows the difficulty of estimating regional impacts of climate change. It highlights the need for additional scientific research; namely, improved climate models; and it reminds us of the potential risk of climate change. For just a moment I want to shift the talk about how our energy policy will determine future emissions of greenhouse gases. As you might imagine, further emissions will be extremely sensitive in the energy choices we make. We now have an excellent opportunity to address our environmental concerns at the same time that we address our growing dependence on foreign oil. Yesterday, we conducted a hearing on the Republican energy strategy in S. 2557, the National Energy Security Act of 2000. It includes a balanced portfolio of energy options that, amazingly enough, would produce fewer greenhouse gases than the current administration plan. Let me repeat that. This legislation contains a methodology to generate fewer greenhouse gases than the administration's current energy plan. That is not surprising because the administration's plan would increase our dependence on foreign oil to nearly 66 percent by the year 2020. We would advocate increased use of natural gas for a wide range of energy needs. We also provide tax incentives for renewables, such as wind and biomass, and make the relicensing process for nuclear and hydro power plants much easier. But to achieve these goals, we will need some changes in the existing energy policies. We need incentives to increase domestic production of oil and gas, particularly on Federal lands where this administration has simply refused to allow oil and gas exploration. About 64 percent of the overthrust belt has been determined to be over limits. In my State of Alaska, where you are very likely to have a large discovery in a small sliver of the Arctic, about 1.5 million acres out of 19 million acres has been put off limits. We need incentives and R&D funds to develop and promote clean fossil fuel technology. We need to use more natural gas for end-use appliances and distributed generation of electricity through fuel cells and microturbines in homes and businesses. We need to eliminate barriers to our best sources of nonemitting power generation; namely, nuclear and hydro. And we need to encourage and support renewable energy technologies. Based on some simple calculations by my Energy and Natural Resource Committee staff, we estimate that such a balanced energy plan could reduce our emissions by 11 percent, compared to the administration's plan, by the year 2020. We could do this without economic cost and without sacrificing our quality of life or our competitive situation with little economic pain. Our staff is working to refine these calculations further. But the details really do not matter much. Simply put, if we use more nuclear, more hydro, and more natural gas, we emit fewer greenhouse gases and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the year 2020 from 68 percent, as projected under the administration's plan, to less than 50 percent under the Republican plan. Clearly, that is a step in the right direction. With further R&D funding for climate-friendly energy technology, such as that proposed in our climate change bill, S. 882, we can do better. A balanced energy portfolio simply makes good sense for our economy, for our environment, and for our national security. We have proposed legislation that will take us there. Let me close by noting that it seems ironic this administration has wasted no opportunity to talk about the dire predictions of climate change. Yet the Republican energy plan offers a cleaner, more secure energy future. The risk of human-induced climate change is a risk we should responsibly address. We should address it based on sound science, and not emotion, as is often the case around here. A balanced, technology- driven energy strategy offers the means to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, a few days ago, June 12, we were advised of a security incident associated with our Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The particular notification initially came out in a press release from Los Alamos, unlike a press release from the Department of Energy. It specifically stated that the Los Alamos National Laboratory announced a joint Department of Energy-Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry underway into the missing classified information at the DOE Laboratory. The information was stored on two hard drives. It was an electronic transfer. These two hard drives were unaccounted for. This is a serious matter, to say the least. The press release indicated that at this point there is no evidence that suggests espionage involved in this incident. Today we had an opportunity to hold a joint hearing between the Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Shelby, and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I chair. It was rather enlightening because the Secretary of Energy was not there, although he was invited. The significance of what we learned was that no one bears the ultimate responsibility. The Department of Energy suggests that they designated certain people to bear this responsibility. There was a process and procedure underway, but circumstances associated with the disastrous fire, the need for evacuation and other factors, all led to the missing documentation and the two hard drives. I can generalize and suggest that, well, our national security to a degree went up in smoke at the time of the disastrous fires in New Mexico. You can lose your car keys, but you don't lose these hard drives. What we are talking about is the very highest security interests of this Nation. Missing on the hard drives is the highly sensitive information that covers not only the Russian nuclear weapons programs but how we arm and disarm nuclear devices. Imagine what this would mean if it fell into the hands of terrorists. They could theoretically steal a nuclear device and either arm it or disarm it. That is the kind of information for which we cannot account. Earlier today this body voted 97-0 to confirm the new czar, Gen. John Gordon, who has been waiting since May for confirmation. It had been held up by Members on the other side who had a hold on his nomination. The question of responsibility is a reasonable one. We had the assurance of the Secretary of Energy that he bore the responsibility for security in the laboratories after we had the Wen Ho Lee incident. That was widely publicized; it was widely debated. Not only that, at that time, Members will recall, there was a special commission set up. This commission came as a result of a report from the House. That report ultimately resulted in the appointment of a former respected Senator, Warren Rudman, who has since retired. The purpose of that report was to analyze the security at the laboratories at that particular time. I will read a couple of inserts and findings from that report because I think they bear on the credibility of what we are hearing from the Department of Energy. One of the findings stated: More than 25 years worth of reports, studies and formal inquiries--by executive branch agencies, Congress, independent panels, and even the DOE itself--have identified a multitude of chronic security and counterintelligence problems at all of the weapons labs. Critical security flaws . . . have been cited for immediate attention and resolution . . . over and over and over . . . ad nauseam. They haven't been corrected. Further, the report again was the Rudman report. The open-source information alone on the weapons laboratories overwhelmingly supports a troubling conclusion: Their security and counterintelligence operations have been seriously hobbled and relegated to low-priority status for decades. That, again, is associated with the Wen Ho Lee security breach. Finally, Senator Warren Rudman indicates: The Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself. Accountability at DOE has been spread so thinly and erratically that it is now almost impossible to find. Well, we heard this morning that the Secretary is going to appoint-- or has appointed--our respected colleague, Senator Howard Baker, and a very distinguished House Member, Lee Hamilton, to give a report on the findings as to the security adequacy at the labs. Well, I welcome this in one sense, and I reflect on it with some question in another, because clearly what Senator Rudman recommended in his report, ``Science at its Best; Security at its Worst'' was not followed by the Department of Energy. The action taken by both the Senate and the House in the manner in which we proceeded with legislation to authorize an energy czar was objected to by the Secretary of Energy through the entire process, almost to the point of eluding congressional intent in the law, and the fact that others felt inclined to hold up his nomination until the vote today, 97-0. I think that reflects on the squeaky wheel theory. The wheel squeaks enough today, and we finally put our czar, Gen. John Gordon, in a responsible position. But the barn door has been left open, and it is inconceivable to me that we have not had adequate explanations of how this could occur. You can go to the library and get a card, take out a book, and they know who took out the book. If you are overdue, you pay a penalty. But not in the Department of Energy secured area. They have their so-called nest people who have access to this. It is estimated that that number is 86 or so. They take this material in and out. What happened is rather interesting on this particular day, according to the testimony we had. I will leave you with this concluding thought: On May 7, the fire was moving toward the laboratory. The obligation of this nest group is to ensure that if the laboratories were to fall victim to the fire so that no one could get in for a period of time, they would have these hard drives available if somewhere there were a nuclear device that was prepared to or exposed somewhere to go off, that this team could take this technology on these two hard drives and go off and disarm them. They had that obligation. So they proceeded to go into the secured area and they asked permission and got permission from one of the deputies to enter. They went to remove the two hard drive disks, and they found that they were gone; they weren't there. Now, what they did is rather interesting. They didn't notify their senior officials. They simply moved over to another shelf where a duplication of these hard drives was available and they took those. Then, after the fire, they went back and searched the place, could not find it, and finally they reported it, I think, on May 24. It was a timeframe from May 7, when the fire started, and on May 24 a team went back and searched again, and then at about the end of May, they called the DOE and in early June the story broke. Those are the facts up until now. When you hear the explanations, you just shake your head and say, how could this happen? And then, of course, the questions we have are: Who might have this information? If they had it, what might they be able to do with it? Some of these questions have to be responded to in a secure environment because of the national security interest. Some have said, well, the appropriators didn't give them enough money to ensure a foolproof system. They asked for $35 million and I think they got $7 million. It doesn't take $7 million to put in a foolproof checkout system. They don't even have cameras in these secured areas. They don't know who is going in and out--other than they have to have a certain security clearance to go in. But there is no checkout system. It is unbelievable. We need answers and we are going to pursue this matter. As a consequence of the situation to date, clearly, the DOE and the labs have not been under control. I hope now that we have cleared the nomination, with the vote of 97-0, of the National Nuclear Security Administrator, that process can get underway. But there are a lot of questions that remain. The two missing hard drives contain secrets about every nuclear weapon in the world--just not ours. We should pursue this matter because clearly the buck has to stop somewhere. When Congressmen Norm Dicks and Christopher Cox in their report concluded that China had design information--the Wen Ho Lee case--that should have been enough. The report by Senator Warren Rudman should have been an alarm, and the action by the Senate and the House to establish the energy czar should have been enough. But it wasn't. Today, as I said, the squeaky wheel got some grease. We have Gen. John Gordon in the position, but we have a lot of questions unanswered and a lot of people who assured us that they bore the responsibility that everything was under control. We found out today that it isn't. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Warner for the significant improvements he and his committee have proposed for the TRICARE system. However I am concerned that the current proposals do not address access problems in rural states, and I am offering this amendment to alleviate this problem. Military healthcare is one of the most important quality of life issues for my constituents. I have heard countless times how civilian doctors are refusing to see TRICARE patients because of the extremely low rates at which they are reimbursed. Because an adequate civilian healthcare provider network is required to supplement the military healthcare system, especially in rural states, TRICARE is failing to provide the kind of healthcare our service members, retirees and their dependents deserve. In rural states like my home state of Alaska, this is a huge problem. Medical costs are much higher than average, and there are fewer doctors. Having fewer doctors to compete with reduces physicians' incentive to accept the extremely low pay from TRICARE. In fact, in Alaska, doctors who see TRICARE patients are paid less than when they see Medicaid patients. Frankly, I am very concerned that the government would consider those who serve in our armed forces as less worthy of quality care than welfare recipients. When doctors refuse to see TRICARE beneficiaries and their dependents, they are forced to pay for their care themselves, or go without it all together. I have heard too often from Alaskans in the military who are frustrated that they cannot receive care because doctors cannot afford to see them. I would like to read the following letter from one of my constituents and ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the Record. The Department of Defense has the authority to raise the rates they pay doctors if they decide that a region has access problems. In fact, they are in the process of doing this in parts of Alaska. However they have excluded Anchorage, the largest city in the state. This is where the largest portion of beneficiaries live, and where the largest access problem exists. It is clear to me that the Department of Defense is not properly assessing where access is a problem. Because of this, it is time for Congress to act. My amendment will raise the rates the Department of Defense pays to civilian doctors who see TRICARE patients. It also calls on the Department of Defense to conduct a study assessing access problems in rural states, and present Congress ways to solve these problems. When men and women in the armed services, retirees and their dependents are refused treatment by civilian doctors, it has a direct effect on morale. They begin to think twice when it comes time to reenlist or leave. I am sure they are not recommending service to the young people in their family and community. With our current recruitment and retention problems in the military, I think it is our responsibility in the Senate to give TRICARE beneficiaries the kind of high quality healthcare they have earned through their dedication to this nation. I urge my colleagues to accept this important amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, are we in morning business at this time?