Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time do we have on both sides?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I grant 5 minutes to Senator Sessions.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Stephen S.F. Chen, who serves as the head of the Taipei Cultural and Economic Representative Office in Washington, DC. Ambassador Chen will be retiring from diplomatic service and returning to his home in Taiwan soon. I have come to know Ambassador Chen well since his appointment in October of 1997, as have many of my colleagues, and hold him in high regard for his unquestioned professionalism and personal integrity. Ambassador Chen has, for forty years, ably represented his government in posts throughout the world. His experience in the United States is extensive. During the past twenty-five years Ambassador Chen has served in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Over the years, Ambassador Chen has become a friend to numerous Americans, myself included. It is fitting in many ways that he closes his diplomatic career here in Washington, among friends. Mr. President, representing the people of Taiwan abroad is a challenge of great magnitude. The people of Taiwan live in an admirably democratic, free and dynamic community at home. They are significantly more constrained in the international community. Effectively communicating the interests of Taiwan abroad requires considerable diplomatic skill, patience and resolve. Stephen Chen embodies all these traits. The people of Taiwan could not have had a better Ambassador in Washington, D.C., than Stephen Chen. I will certainly miss my good friend when he leaves and know my colleagues will join me in extending to him our best wishes and great appreciation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to recognize a recent achievement of the men and women at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska. Today, they received the Air Force's 1999 General Thomas D. White Environmental Award for Restoration. This award reflects the commitment of the Air Force in Anchorage to making Elmendorf Air Force Base and the surrounding community a better place to live. Mr. President, the men and women who serve our nation at Elmendorf have always been sensitive to the needs of the communities surrounding the base. Indeed, all of the Air Force installations in Alaska, have gone out of their way to ensure that the environment is not permanently harmed by any military presence. Innovative approaches to cleanup have resulted in Elmendorf being projected to reach Air Force cleanup goals a full ten years ahead of schedule. Several measures are in place to improve and speed up the cleanup of any future environmental hazards, all at a cost savings of over $1 million to the taxpayers. All of these efforts have ensured a long standing positive relationship with the civilian community and preserved the beautiful lands in Alaska for future generations to enjoy. For this reason, the Air Force today rewarded the men and women at Elmendorf for their diligence. Today, the people of Elmendorf can be proud of the fact that they are an example by which other Air Force installations around the nation, indeed the world, will measure themselves for environmental awareness. I join the Air Force in commending those at Elmendorf, like Lieutenant General Thomas R. Case and Colonel Duncan H. Showers, who have made this possible. I also look forward to continued work with the Air Force in Alaska to maintain their excellent relationship with the rest of the communities in Alaska.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have a number of bills from my Committee on the Calendar that are ready for consideration, but I want to take a moment to say a few words about a bill I think has real potential for addressing the long-term energy needs of our nation. H.R. 1753, the Methane hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, would establish a small research program with the potential for a major payoff--energy security for the foreseeable future. Methane Hydrates are rigid, ice-like solids of water surrounding a gas molecule, found at low temperatures and high pressures. When melted or depressurized, they release methane, pure natural gas, the same fuel we use to heat our homes and power our economy. Significant quantities of methane hydrates have been detected all over the world. In the U.S., marine geologists have detected deposits of methane hydrates in deep sea sediments that lie off the coasts of the Carolinas, Louisiana, Texas, California, Oregon, and my home state of Alaska. We've also detected methane hydrates under the permafrost during conventional oil drilling operations in my home state of Alaska. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that nearly 320,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be extracted from the methane hydrates found in the U.S. alone. Compare that to our existing reserves of cheap, clean natural gas--1,300 trillion cubic feet--and our annual use of natural gas--just 20 trillion cubic feet per year. Even if we can learn to recover just 1 percent of our methane hydrate reserves, we will more than triple our available natural gas reserves and guarantee a source of cheap, secure and clean energy for the next century and well beyond. The problem is: we need fundamental research on these hydrates to understand how they form, and how the gas molecule can be released in a way that we can use. Even now, methane hydrates pose hazards to conventional oil and gas recovery. Hydrates determine the stability and strength of the sea floor--when the hydrates are destabilized, the resulting gas release can undermine oil platforms and sink drilling ships. Methane hydrates release 160 volumes of gas for every volume of hydrate--and many existing hydrate formations are very unstable. Even a small disturbance--an unintentional landslide--could release massive quantities of gas. Oil platforms in the Caspian Sea have been destroyed as a result of this kind of accidental release. Methane hydrates also play a significant role in global climate change. Recent scientific research suggests that abrupt climate changes have occurred in the past as a result of release of methane gas from hydrates. They are an important part of the global carbon cycle, which we must ultimately understand in detail if we want to act responsibly to address the risk of climate change. Since natural gas releases fewer carbon atoms per unit of energy, replacing coal and oil usage with natural gas from methane hydrates also reduces our risk of climate change--some experts estimate we can reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent just by fuel substitution alone. We can also learn about carbon sequestration through studying how methane hydrates form--perhaps even replacing methane hydrates used for energy with hydrates using carbon dioxide sequestered from the atmosphere. All of these things point to the need for a fundamental methane hydrate research program of the kind proposed in this bill. I want to thank my good friends and colleagues on the Energy Committee, Senators Akaka and Craig, for their leadership and recognition of the potential for methane hydrates to satisfy our future energy needs, enable our long-term energy security, and help us responsibly address the risk of climate change. Working with our colleagues in the House, we have been able to develop legislation that would authorize $45 million in new funding for research in this important area. Anticipating passage of a bill like this one, the Department of Energy has prepared an excellent multi-year research and development program plan that addresses all of the issues involved--with the goal of safe commercial production of energy from hydrates by 2010. It is clear that we are not doing enough to explore the possibility of this exciting new energy source. Other nations of the world--Japan, Canada, India, Korea and Norway--are starting ambitious research programs. The Japanese began a drilling project of their own in November 1999, and expect that production can begin within 10 years, maybe sooner. The technology exists--Syntroleum, an Oklahoma company-- has recently acquired a patent for a gas hydrate recovery system. All we need now is the sustained research to make it commercially viable. For those reasons, Mr. President, I am glad that my colleagues here in the Senate will agree to pass the bill in the form passed by the House two weeks ago, so we can send it to the President for signature and get going on this important research program. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Akaka and Craig, we may look back years from now on this day as the day we broke free of our dependence on foreign oil and guaranteed ourselves a clean energy source for many years to come.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with my colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, to provide a tremendously important authorization for an electrical intertie for an isolated region of my State of Alaska. As many of my colleagues know, Alaska has many unique problems. We are over twice the size of Texas, with fewer miles of paved roads than the District of Columbia. Most of our communities are unconnected. The results of this are stark for those in unconnected communities, and have significant impacts on their lives. Energy costs and reliance upon fossil fuels for power generation are just some of these impacts. The vast majority of these towns and villages pay very high energy costs. In some instances, these costs exceed 38 cents per kilowatt hour. This makes the cost of living almost unbearable for many local residents. For example, the village of Kake, Alaska pays 38 cents per kilowatt hour and has 38 percent unemployment. Unlike in the rest of the country, when unemployment strikes a particular unconnected community in Alaska, the option to drive to employment in a neighboring community does not exist. One either stays in a devastated community or sells one's home in a market of sellers under duress. With electrical rates running three times and above those in most of the U.S., few will invest in these communities. Mr. President, I refer Members to the latest study of economic situation in Southeast Alaska. The report deals with the economic impact of declining timber harvests in Southeast Alaska. This is not intended to restart the debate over that issue. That is for another forum. However, what the report vividly describes is the drastic decline in the economy of this region. In the last decade, known by most of the country as the greatest boom in the century, Southeast Alaska has lost 2900 jobs and over $100 million in payroll. Many of these communities have suffered losses in population. For example, the Wrangell/Petersburg area has suffered a 13 percent loss in wage and salary income; my hometown of Ketchikan suffered a similar 12 percent loss. Personal income is down from 5 to 11 percent in the region generally. The problem for Southeast Alaska is that it has no viable option for a replacement industry. In other areas of the country, such as the Pacific Northwest, alternative employment such as high tech companies in Oregon and Washington have replaced honorable livelihoods in resource-based industries. There has been no comparable replacement industry for Southeast Alaska. There are a number of reasons, but the biggest reason is lack of affordable power for most communities. Mr. President, in the Pacific Northwest, power costs are reasonable and the Bonneville Power Administration has an efficient and modern distribution system. In the lower 48 generally, every village and town is connected by power grid to the rest of the nation. That is not the case in Southeast Alaska. This lack of connection exacerbates the situation. However, what can be done is to interconnect the region. By doing this, the existing and potential clean energy sources can be maximized and the power can be managed between communities and other users. Right now, one hydroelectric facility, Lake Tyee has tremendous excess capacity to bring clean and cheaper energy to many villages. This has been proven in a study conducted by the Southeast Conference. The Southeast Conference is the group of Mayors representing communities throughout Southeast Alaska. This study, entitled the Southeast Alaska Electrical Intertie System Plan, outlines the regional grid which this bill authorizes. Mr. President, let me be clear, this is only an authorization. The bill provides no obligation to the Federal government to be involved in the construction of this intertie system whatsoever. The bill also does not authorize nor does it contemplate that the federal government will exercise any ownership or management responsibility over this system. In fact, the Southeast communities which have asked me to introduce this bill seek to manage this project themselves. It simply provides an authorization for the Congress to assist the communities in assemblying funding for the project. There is ample precedent for this. In fact, this very process was used successfully in Arizona and Utah with the Central Arizona and Central Utah projects. The era of the federal government constructing, owning and operating new power generation facilities has passed. However, the federal government can provide valuable assistance to a group of communities which seek to get their region back on the road to economic recovery. This is a good bill because it encourages local self reliance. Mr. President, an intertie can do so much to assist this region. Right now, we have a series of isolated communities which cannot even work with each other on power issues. Each must provide its own generation and transmission facilities. And almost all of these facilities use diesel oil-fired generation because that is the only type of self-contained transmission facility which these communities can afford. Instead with an intertie, these generators can be put in mothballs and used only for isolated emergency backup. The intertie will provide reliable and clean sources of energy for all these communities. I am informed by the communities that they intend to form a state chartered regional power authority to manage this Intertie. It will have no federal budgetary obligation. Additionally, the intertie will help the environment by shifting these small villages from their diesel generation and pointing them towards clean, renewable fuel sources. All of these facilities will be subject to all federal, state, and local laws including environmental laws. Just to make sure that this is clear, I have included a specific provision in the bill that reaffirms that this simple authorization will not affect, change, or alter any obligations under federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). All of the facilities will be subject to normal permitting. There will undoubtedly be environmental studies required for the different components. For example, part of phase 1 of the Intertie includes the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee project which will connect my hometown of Ketchikan to its neighbors to the north, Wrangell and Petersburg. The permits for this project are already in place and were issued by the Forest Service as a result of a laborious 2 year NEPA study. The Forest Service issued a full Environmental Impact Statement which resulted in a favorable record of decision. No corners were cut and the project was approved by the Forest Service and permits issued. This bill will have no effect on that process. Any other phases will have to undergo close scrutiny, although I am convinced that connecting communities together using renewable hydropower will be much better environmentally than continued reliance on transporting, storing and burning high-priced diesel. Mr. President, Alaska was not even a state when the major transmission systems were built in this country in the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's. Until World War II compelled the heroic construction of the Alcan Highway. Alaska was not even connected by road to the rest of the country. Alaska was never even considered as a candidate for the construction of a transmission system. Alaska's economic development is in its infancy even today. A project like the Southeast Regional Intertie is necessary to give that region of Alaska the opportunity to recover from the economic disaster outlined in the McDowell report. It is my intention to have this bill considered by my committee soon and I hope to report it favorably to the Senate floor in the near future.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with my colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, to provide a tremendously important authorization for an electrical intertie for an isolated region of my State of Alaska. As many of my colleagues know, Alaska has many unique problems. We are over twice the size of Texas, with fewer miles of paved roads than the District of Columbia. Most of our communities are unconnected. The results of this are stark for those in unconnected communities, and have significant impacts on their lives. Energy costs and reliance upon fossil fuels for power generation are just some of these impacts. The vast majority of these towns and villages pay very high energy costs. In some instances, these costs exceed 38 cents per kilowatt hour. This makes the cost of living almost unbearable for many local residents. For example, the village of Kake, Alaska pays 38 cents per kilowatt hour and has 38 percent unemployment. Unlike in the rest of the country, when unemployment strikes a particular unconnected community in Alaska, the option to drive to employment in a neighboring community does not exist. One either stays in a devastated community or sells one's home in a market of sellers under duress. With electrical rates running three times and above those in most of the U.S., few will invest in these communities. Mr. President, I refer Members to the latest study of economic situation in Southeast Alaska. The report deals with the economic impact of declining timber harvests in Southeast Alaska. This is not intended to restart the debate over that issue. That is for another forum. However, what the report vividly describes is the drastic decline in the economy of this region. In the last decade, known by most of the country as the greatest boom in the century, Southeast Alaska has lost 2900 jobs and over $100 million in payroll. Many of these communities have suffered losses in population. For example, the Wrangell/Petersburg area has suffered a 13 percent loss in wage and salary income; my hometown of Ketchikan suffered a similar 12 percent loss. Personal income is down from 5 to 11 percent in the region generally. The problem for Southeast Alaska is that it has no viable option for a replacement industry. In other areas of the country, such as the Pacific Northwest, alternative employment such as high tech companies in Oregon and Washington have replaced honorable livelihoods in resource-based industries. There has been no comparable replacement industry for Southeast Alaska. There are a number of reasons, but the biggest reason is lack of affordable power for most communities. Mr. President, in the Pacific Northwest, power costs are reasonable and the Bonneville Power Administration has an efficient and modern distribution system. In the lower 48 generally, every village and town is connected by power grid to the rest of the nation. That is not the case in Southeast Alaska. This lack of connection exacerbates the situation. However, what can be done is to interconnect the region. By doing this, the existing and potential clean energy sources can be maximized and the power can be managed between communities and other users. Right now, one hydroelectric facility, Lake Tyee has tremendous excess capacity to bring clean and cheaper energy to many villages. This has been proven in a study conducted by the Southeast Conference. The Southeast Conference is the group of Mayors representing communities throughout Southeast Alaska. This study, entitled the Southeast Alaska Electrical Intertie System Plan, outlines the regional grid which this bill authorizes. Mr. President, let me be clear, this is only an authorization. The bill provides no obligation to the Federal government to be involved in the construction of this intertie system whatsoever. The bill also does not authorize nor does it contemplate that the federal government will exercise any ownership or management responsibility over this system. In fact, the Southeast communities which have asked me to introduce this bill seek to manage this project themselves. It simply provides an authorization for the Congress to assist the communities in assemblying funding for the project. There is ample precedent for this. In fact, this very process was used successfully in Arizona and Utah with the Central Arizona and Central Utah projects. The era of the federal government constructing, owning and operating new power generation facilities has passed. However, the federal government can provide valuable assistance to a group of communities which seek to get their region back on the road to economic recovery. This is a good bill because it encourages local self reliance. Mr. President, an intertie can do so much to assist this region. Right now, we have a series of isolated communities which cannot even work with each other on power issues. Each must provide its own generation and transmission facilities. And almost all of these facilities use diesel oil-fired generation because that is the only type of self-contained transmission facility which these communities can afford. Instead with an intertie, these generators can be put in mothballs and used only for isolated emergency backup. The intertie will provide reliable and clean sources of energy for all these communities. I am informed by the communities that they intend to form a state chartered regional power authority to manage this Intertie. It will have no federal budgetary obligation. Additionally, the intertie will help the environment by shifting these small villages from their diesel generation and pointing them towards clean, renewable fuel sources. All of these facilities will be subject to all federal, state, and local laws including environmental laws. Just to make sure that this is clear, I have included a specific provision in the bill that reaffirms that this simple authorization will not affect, change, or alter any obligations under federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). All of the facilities will be subject to normal permitting. There will undoubtedly be environmental studies required for the different components. For example, part of phase 1 of the Intertie includes the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee project which will connect my hometown of Ketchikan to its neighbors to the north, Wrangell and Petersburg. The permits for this project are already in place and were issued by the Forest Service as a result of a laborious 2 year NEPA study. The Forest Service issued a full Environmental Impact Statement which resulted in a favorable record of decision. No corners were cut and the project was approved by the Forest Service and permits issued. This bill will have no effect on that process. Any other phases will have to undergo close scrutiny, although I am convinced that connecting communities together using renewable hydropower will be much better environmentally than continued reliance on transporting, storing and burning high-priced diesel. Mr. President, Alaska was not even a state when the major transmission systems were built in this country in the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's. Until World War II compelled the heroic construction of the Alcan Highway. Alaska was not even connected by road to the rest of the country. Alaska was never even considered as a candidate for the construction of a transmission system. Alaska's economic development is in its infancy even today. A project like the Southeast Regional Intertie is necessary to give that region of Alaska the opportunity to recover from the economic disaster outlined in the McDowell report. It is my intention to have this bill considered by my committee soon and I hope to report it favorably to the Senate floor in the near future.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 27 at 9:30 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. This is the third in a series of hearings regarding pending electricity competition legislation: S. 282, the Transition to Competition in the Electric Industry Act; S. 516, the Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999; S. 1047, the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act; S. 1284, the Electric Consumer Choice Act; S. 1273, the Federal Power Act Amendments of 1999; S. 1369, the Clean Energy Act of 1999; S. 2071, Electric Reliability 2000 Act; and S. 2098, the Electric Power Market Competition and Reliability Act. For further information, please call Trici Heninger at (202) 224- 7875.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk, for appropriate reference, legislation submitted by the administration to increase the authorization of appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation's Safety of Dams program. Let me emphasize that I am introducing this legislation at the request of the administration. Neither I nor any other member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has taken a position on the merits of the legislation at this time. I understand some water users have expressed concerns with this legislation, and I want to assure them that the Water and Power Subcommittee, to which this bill will be referred, will have a hearing on the legislation so that they can make their concerns a part of the record and address them in the legislative process. Ensuring the safety of dams under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation is very important but is must be done in a way that ensures safety at Reclamation facilities while not causing undue financial hardship for project beneficiaries. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of transmittal from the administration and a section-by-section of the legislation that the administration prepared be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk, for appropriate reference, legislation submitted by the administration to increase the authorization of appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation's Safety of Dams program. Let me emphasize that I am introducing this legislation at the request of the administration. Neither I nor any other member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has taken a position on the merits of the legislation at this time. I understand some water users have expressed concerns with this legislation, and I want to assure them that the Water and Power Subcommittee, to which this bill will be referred, will have a hearing on the legislation so that they can make their concerns a part of the record and address them in the legislative process. Ensuring the safety of dams under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation is very important but is must be done in a way that ensures safety at Reclamation facilities while not causing undue financial hardship for project beneficiaries. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of transmittal from the administration and a section-by-section of the legislation that the administration prepared be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is not just the American motorists who want to see gas taxes come down. There are business organizations, especially small businesses, that have been hit hard by the fuel price jump. Their businesses are being devastated. I have a letter of support from the National Federation of Independent Businesses which represents more than 600,000 small businesses in America. In their letter, they cite the fuel price hike and what it has meant to an average small business. I quote: For a small company that consumes 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel in a month, the increase it prices in the past year will cost that company an additional $40,000 per month. If fuel prices remain high, these costs could eventually be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for many goods and services. A 4.3 cent reduction in the cost of fuel would save the company more than $2,000 per month. The Independent Truckers Association also sent a letter of its support to our legislation. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record along with the letter from the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if OPEC decides to cut back its increased production by one-third, then where are we? We are right back where we were before OPEC made the decision to raise production. Think about that--full circle. I spoke before the ocean industries this morning and expressed my concern. The Secretary of Energy, the Honorable Bill Richardson, spoke before me. I don't think he was able to convey much of a feeling of assurance that, indeed, we had this issue of an energy crisis under control. If OPEC makes the decision to raise production, I think we have to go back and examine the deal the Secretary made with OPEC. That is rather interesting. I think we need to because OPEC never really increased their production by 1.5 or 1.7 million barrels. If you factor in the reality that OPEC was cheating, what really happened on or before March 27 was OPEC's actual increase of production was a bare 500,000 barrels a day. That is what we really got. The rationale for that is the recognition, if you read the agreement, that they acknowledge they were posting in the cartel a production of 23 million barrels a day. They were cheating and put out 24.2 million barrels a day. When the administration announced that it was going to get an additional 1.7 million barrels a day, they didn't take into account the reality that they were already cheating by 1.2 million barrels a day. If you subtract 1.2 from 1.7, you get 500,000 barrels a day. That is actually what we got. In that case, we are right back where we started before OPEC met. Do not be misled, my colleagues. All of that doesn't go to the United States. There are other customers of OPEC. We traditionally get 16 percent of our crude oil from OPEC. By the time you look at the allotments of the other countries, it is estimated that out of 500,000 barrels, the U.S. gets somewhere in the area of 75,000 to 88,000 barrels. Furthermore, if you look at what we consume in the general metropolitan area of Washington, DC, and its extensions, it is about 121,000 barrels a day. We haven't gotten anything. We are almost assured that we will see higher gasoline prices this summer. For that reason alone, I believe we should give relief now to the American motorists by rolling back the Gore gas tax. Yesterday, I indicated that 74 percent of the American people think that the 4.3 cents per gallon should be temporarily lifted. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Gallup Poll of March 30 to April 3 which indicated that 74 percent favor a temporary reduction of the Federal gas tax of 4.3 cents per gallon as a way of dealing with the increased price of oil, and 23 percent oppose that.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have started our debate, and later this afternoon we will have a vote on the disposition of the waiver of the gas tax. Upon arriving on the floor, I had the opportunity to hear the remarks of the Senator from California relative to an issue we have discussed on previous occasions; that is, the export of petroleum, energy products. I think the generalization was that she was concerned with the export from the State of Alaska of some 60,000 barrels a day of oil product. As I have explained on this floor before, the export of our oil product, which is surplus to the west coast, has been carried on by one company that had that access, British Petroleum. British Petroleum has since acquired the non-Alaska segment of ARCO, which includes a number of refineries. BP did not have refineries on the west coast. I have introduced a letter in the Record from BP indicating they will curtail exports of Alaskan oil at the end of this month. I also have a letter from Phillips, which has acquired ARCO Alaska, and it is not their intent to export Alaskan oil. I hope that addresses and resolves the issue and satisfies the concerns of those who continually bring this up in spite of my explanation. But I will also submit for the Record the list of exports of petroleum products by States of exit for the current month. I note that Alaska is listed on this list at 3.9 million barrels a day; that California, the State of which my friend was speaking, shows exports of 6.2 million barrels a day of energy products; that Texas, for example, has 14 million barrels a day of petroleum, energy products; that Louisiana has 4.4 million. We are currently exporting about 37 million barrels of energy products. This is a combination of jet fuel, motor gas, crude oil, and so forth. But it simply points out a reality that I think the Record should note. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate is going to have a chance to vote on whether we can quickly give the American motorists some relief from spiraling gasoline costs. I urge my colleagues to objectively evaluate the responsibility they have in representing the American people on this issue and whether the American people clearly want relief. The 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax, that was adopted in 1993 after Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding tie-breaking vote, raised the gas tax by 30 percent. It is interesting to go back and look at the issue. I know some of my colleagues will come to the floor because they think it is a mistake to establish a precedent wherein general revenues are used to finance highway construction. Ordinarily I would agree with them, but not in this case. As the record will show, in 1993, when this was passed, the revenue went to fund the general fund. That is the budget. That is the expenditures of the administration as they see fit. There was a substantial revenue stream that went into the general fund of about $21 billion. That is what was collected in that timeframe between 1993 and 1997, when the Republican majority changed the formula and directed that the 4.3 cent a gallon be put into the highway trust fund. That is a little background to keep in mind, as we address the appropriateness of supporting or rejecting the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday Act, which is before us. The point I make again is that the administration had the benefit of $21 billion of expenditures from the revenue generated from 1993 until 1997, when the Republican majority changed the funding mechanism and put it in the highway trust fund. I also remind my colleagues that the Vice President broke the tie back in 1993 when the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax was initiated. I think the Vice President has to bear the responsibility of defending his position on the Gore tax, as it has been fondly referred to by those of us on the Republican side of the aisle. I find it curious to reflect that not a single penny of that tax was dedicated to highway or bridge construction. All the money was earmarked for the administration's spending. I think we have an obligation to hear from the American public. What do they think? This is a Gallup poll, March 30 through April 2. It asked the question: Would you favor or oppose a temporary reduction in the Federal gas tax by 4.3 cents per gallon as a way of dealing with the increased price of oil? Notice, it does not ask about the highway trust fund. It does not ask whether we will reimburse the highway trust fund. It is quite specific: Would you favor or oppose a temporary reduction in the Federal gas tax of 4.3 cents per gallon as a way of dealing with the increased price of oil? In response to this poll, 74 percent of the respondents favor a temporary reduction; those in opposition, 23 percent. I think this is a fair sample of the attitude of the American public with regard to this issue. Seventy-four percent favor the temporary reduction. I encourage my colleagues, as well as the staffs, observing the debate today, to recognize this. I remind all Members of the Gallup poll, March 30 to April 2, 74 percent of the respondents favor a temporary reduction. I think that is significant and represents, certainly, the attitude of a significant portion of the American public. I think it is appropriate that we make it clear it is the intention, the commitment of those of us who happen to favor providing the American public with relief that we ensure there is no sacrifice made in the highway trust fund program. In addition, our legislative guarantees that if the failed Clinton-Gore energy policy results in the price of gasoline rising above $2 a gallon--that is for regular--all fuel taxes will be lifted until the end of the year. Let me make sure everybody understands. We are proposing to waive the 4.3 immediately, suspending it for the balance of this year, with the proviso that the highway trust fund will be totally funded. I emphasize, there is no free lunch. It has to come from the budget surplus. I would like to see it come from savings on wasteful Government spending. But it will provide immediate relief, and it will not jeopardize the highway trust fund. In addition, the legislation guarantees that if the failed Clinton- Gore energy policy results in the price of gasoline rising above $2 a gallon for the average price of fuel--that is regular self serve--all fuel taxes will be lifted until the end of the year. Isn't this the kind of a safety net the American consumer needs, like the mom who goes down to fill up the Suburban at $1.80 a gallon? That shoots a pretty good hole in a $100 bill for that 40-gallon gas tank. What about the guy who gets up at 4 o'clock in the morning to drive into Washington, DC, to work as a carpenter. He drives 50 or 60 miles in the morning, the same in the evening. Is he looking for some relief? You bet he is. This is real relief. It appropriately puts the responsibility back where it belongs--on the administration--to ensure us that their projections stand the test of time. If you look at their projections, they are pretty weak. The statements by the Secretary of Energy were pretty weak as far as predicting the price. I note that on the CBS ``Early Show'' of March 29, the Secretary indicated, when asked by Jane Clayson about the price: . . . gasoline prices will gradually and steadily decline, possibly, according to the Energy Information Administration, my department, as much as 11 cents by the end of September. . . . What are we going to do on Memorial Day? What are we going to do on the Fourth of July? They are hedging. This administration knows it is in trouble on this issue because it does not have an energy policy and is simply saying, ``Well, it is going to go down a little bit, maybe by the end of September.'' Further questioning by the interviewer Jane Clayson: So the bottom line, how much can we expect to see a drop at the pump? Secretary Richardson replied: Well, bottom line--I'm just quoting our investigators and other official people--they are saying 11 cents by the end of the summer, possibly over 15, 16, 17 by the end of this year. That is their answer, not very encouraging. Let's get a little more current. If my colleagues have any doubt that prices are not going to come down very much, all they have to do is read today's New York Times. The headline story is: ``Oil Prices Fall Nearly Enough For OPEC''--to do what--``to cut production.'' Imagine that: We are seeing a decline, and they are talking about cutting production. I quote: Less than two weeks after OPEC agreed to increase production to bring down the cost of oil, prices have fallen abruptly and are near the level at which the cartel had agreed it would then cut back its output. Ali Rodriguez, President of the Organization of Petroleum Export Countries, said today that it the price of the organization's benchmark basket of crude oil remained below $22 a barrel, the 1.5 million a day agreed to last month would be cut back by one third. There is the leverage. They are calling the shots. We are not calling the shots. I find it extraordinary that as this administration looks at the energy crisis, we would simply look to the Mideast for relief by increasing imports. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may, we have other speakers who want to speak on our side on the gas tax issue, so we can follow back and forth.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may, I assume the proponents and opponents control the time. We have other speakers who are coming to speak in support of the holiday. The Senator from Texas supports the holiday. I do not know the disposition of the other Republican Members.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think the committee did speak clearly in the actual legislative language of the bill, which requires that the new investment authority be allocated ``consistent with the resolution of the Trustees adopted March 1, 1999 concerning the Restoration Reserve.'' Among other things, this resolution separates the remaining funds into two distinct ``pots'' of money: a $55 million pot which can be used for habitat acquisition; and a $115 million ``pot'' that will be used for research and monitoring activities. As the Trustees have explained the resolution to me, the cost of administration for habitat acquisition will come from the $55 million and the cost of administration for the monitoring and research will come from the $115 million. Therefore, I am confident that the actual legislative language of the bill is clear and that this was the committee's intent. This provision was very important to me in drafting this bill because I have always been concerned about the tens-of- millions of dollars the Trustees have spent on administration of the funds. We prepared a statement to clarify this matter last November. It should have appeared in the Record at the point where the bill was passed (S15162-S15163). Regrettably, the statement was mislaid and did not appear where it should have.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the occupant of the Chair a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I remind the Chair, ordinarily we go back and forth.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, who controls time on this side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Some say this isn't much of a cut. Tell that to the working man or woman who gets up at 4:30 and drives 75 miles one way to work in this city in his pickup because the Government won't let him work at home in the coal mines, or building roads, forests, because they don't support resource development. It might not mean much to the folks who can afford it, but it means a lot to the folks at home. As a consequence, ask the public what they think. It is in a Gallup Poll: 74 percent favor a temporary reduction of the 4.3-cent gas tax. This is a balanced piece of legislation. It is balanced because it would take off the Gore tax. This tax was put on as a consequence of Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie in this body back in 1993. That didn't go into the highway trust fund. That went into the Clinton general fund, and the Clinton administration spent that money as they saw fit. It was the Republican majority in 1998 that turned it around and put it into the highway trust fund. The Clinton administration has enjoyed $21 billion, a windfall they expended out of the general fund for their programs. As Senators look behind the scenes on this one, be careful because reality dictates that this is good for the consumer. The consumers of this Nation want it. Seventy-four percent favor the temporary reduction of the 4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax. If there is anyone who has been misled by this administration and their opinion of what is going to happen, they should have read the New York Times today. The president of OPEC said today that if the price of the organization's benchmark basket of crude oil remained below $22 a barrel, the 1.5-million-barrel-a-day increase the organization agreed to last month would be cut back by one-third. OPEC is saying: If the price goes down below $22 a barrel, we will cut our production. We are nowhere near home on this by any means. We have been sold a bill of goods. Give the taxpayer a break. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. In this legislation, there is full recovery to the highway trust fund, if indeed this suspension takes place. There is a balance in it, too. That balance puts the onus on the administration to encourage that the price remain low because if it doesn't and the price goes to $2 a gallon, clearly what will happen is we will eliminate this tax, which is 18.4 cents. The question has been asked, How do we ensure that it is passed on to the consumer? That is a legitimate question. We provide in the legislation a requirement that the GAO audit and make an issue of anyone who breaks the trust that this differential has to be passed on to the consumer. We have the support of the National Food Processors Association, a letter to that effect, and support from the National Foundation of Independent Businesses and the Independent Truckers Association. I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains?