Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield 10 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Maine for an update on what has occurred as a consequence of the crisis in the Northeast corridor and the implications associated with that in her area. I think she certainly has been diligent in attempting to bring about some relief for her area. It is unfortunate that the administration's answer seems to be soliciting more imports. Of course, those of us who follow this closely know that it is somewhere between 6 and 8 weeks before a barrel of oil that originates in Saudi Arabia is going to be available in her area for the benefit of relieving those who are subjected to the high prices of heating oil. Before I recognize my friend from Texas who is seeking recognition on this subject, I remind my colleagues that there is going to be a lot of finger pointing as to who bears responsibility. The claim by the administration that they have been ``caught by surprise'' suggests that they must have been napping because evidence certainly shows that the President had knowledge of the extent of this crisis developing back in 1994, when the Independent Petroleum Association of America petitioned the Commerce Secretary, under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Under that act, upon a request from an interested party, which the independent petroleum producers certainly were, the Secretary of Commerce must institute, over a 270-day period, an investigation into whether imports threaten U.S. national security. Then, if the Secretary determines such imports do threaten national security, the President has 3 months to disagree or agree and, if he agrees, to determine a response or a solution. In 1994, the Independent Petroleum Association petitioned the Commerce Department. At that time, the late Secretary, Ron Brown, under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, responded. After study, the Department of Commerce found that imports did threaten the national security and reported this to our President. What was the President's response? I quote from the 1994 findings: I am today concurring with the Department of Commerce and their finding that the Nation's growing reliance on imports of crude oil and refined petroleum products threatens the Nation's security because they increase U.S. vulnerability to oil supply interruptions. Granted, that was in 1994, but something else happened in March of 1999. The Congress asked for a new section 232 finding on oil imports. I ask unanimous consent that a letter asking the Department of Commerce for an evaluation under section 232 be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Wyoming. I believe the Senator from Maine seeks recognition, Ms. Collins. She represents a part of the country that has been very hard hit by high heating oil prices with a cold winter. While we have seen excuses made relative to certain volumes of storage capacity being taken out of existence for heating oil because of age and the fact that they did not comply with current environmental requirements for fuel oil storage, we have seen refineries go out of existence. But the constituents in her area have been hit very hard. It is my understanding that this year in the Northeast corridor there is a potential threat associated with high electric prices as a consequence of the likelihood that, indeed, some of the oil-fired plants are going to have to be put on line to meet peak demand. The costs associated with the high price of oil to fuel those plants will be passed on to the consumers in her areas, which puts a further burden on the residents of the Northeast corridor. As a consequence, that addresses the dilemma we have: Whether we are going to continue to rely on imports of energy or finally develop a balance with domestic alternatives. How much time does the Senator from Maine need?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Further, I note that that particular letter is a bipartisan letter. Many Democrats as well as Republicans are on that letter, specifically asking, again, for a new finding on oil imports and pointing out that the domestic oil and gas industry was basically in a free-fall--this was March of 1999 --and that that free-fall would further threaten our national security. In April of 1999, Secretary of Commerce Daley initiated the study. That study was delivered to the President last November. Now, the President has not released that study, but clearly that study is going to point out that national security is at risk because of our increasing dependence on imports. Why hasn't the White House released that report? Yesterday the Majority leader, Senator Lott, along with Senator Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and myself wrote to the President laying out this sequence of facts and asking the President to release that report that has been sitting on his desk since November. Now, he is required by law to do this within 90 days--which has past. So when I hear from the administration that they were caught by surprise, or caught napping, I can only assume they haven't been reading their mail, or they haven't been moving the reports, or they have decided they didn't want to bring this issue up before the American people, because they were told in 1994 and they were told again last November that we were risking our national security as a consequence of our import and dependence on foreign oil, which is now up to 56 percent. The Department of Energy, in its own forecast last year, said in the years 2015 to 2020 we will probably be in the area of 65-percent dependent on imports. I am not buying the excuse that they were caught napping or caught by surprise. They were caught because they haven't done anything about it. They haven't wanted to do anything about it. They hoped they would get out of town before the American public became aware, before the crisis hit, before the farmers came to Washington, before the truck drivers came to Washington, before we had a surcharge on our airline tickets, before we were approaching $2-a-gallon gasoline. But it has caught up with them. It will be very interesting to hear what the White House is going to say now that they have this report under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act; they have had it since November. And why haven't they released it to the American people? I ask the Senator from Texas how much time she will need. We have had 7 minutes. We have had 10 minutes. And we have a couple more speakers. Is 10 minutes adequate?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my good friend from Texas, who has been very much an integral part of our Special Energy Committee to try to address some short-term, interim, and some long-term relief for the crisis we are currently facing in our country.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask a question of my friend from Texas relative to, again, the contribution of these small stripper wells. They are prevalent in our State, Oklahoma, and other areas. While they don't produce much, the numbers are significant. Collectively putting them together could offset dramatically a significant portion of what we import.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Does the Senator have a figure on how significant they are collectively?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment my good friend, the senior Senator from West Virginia, for his attention to the energy crisis that clearly this Nation faces, and particularly his attention to the realization that we have become so dependent on imported energy which clearly affects our national security interests. In 1973--this is a time the Senator would certainly remember, as many Americans do--as a consequence of the Arab oil embargo, we had a very significant event in the United States. We had gas lines around the block. Many younger people don't remember that time. We were 37-percent dependent on imported oil. We created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a consequence of our concern, fearing we might approach 50 percent dependence. We fought a war in the Persian Gulf. At that time, I believe we were 47-percent dependent. Today, this Nation is 56-percent dependent on imported oil. The Department of Energy forecasts by the year 2015 to 2020 we will be 65- percent dependent. I hope we can learn something from history; that is, that we lose our leverage if we become so dependent on that single source of imports. As the Senator from West Virginia pointed out, we have many forms of energy in this country. We have coal, as the Senator notes; we have gas; we have hydro; we have nuclear. However, we don't have a cohesive energy policy. As a consequence, we face a crisis. The farmers in this country are getting ready to plant, and they are going to be facing high energy costs. We have seen truckers come to Washington, DC, and plead because they can't pass on the increased price of diesel to consumers. We have our Secretary of Energy in Nigeria, he was in Saudi Arabia, he has been to Mexico, urging they produce more oil. What we need is a balance. We need a balance in domestic production of energy resources in this country, including coal, oil, and gas, using America's technology and America's know-how to develop these resources safely. I commend my friend from West Virginia for bringing this matter to the attention of this body and recognizing that we have a capability in the United States to relieve our dependence on imported energy. The answer is not to go out and generate more imports; it is to generate more resources domestically. In his State of West Virginia and in my State of Alaska, we have a tremendous capacity to produce energy, if it is given the opportunity. We can do that because we have the advanced technology. He talks about clean coal technology. In our State of Alaska, we talk about drilling in the Arctic in the wintertime where you do not make a footprint because you are on top of the frozen ground. If there is no oil there, there is no scar, no footprint in the spring. I have the obligation of managing some time this morning. Does the senior Senator from West Virginia have anything further to say?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 7 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. We would be losing those jobs, and the dollars would be spent overseas.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend from Wyoming will yield for a question relative to the advanced technology applicable to coal. I believe there have been projects in Wyoming that have addressed the issue in general terms of clean coal, how it can be reformulated to reduce the moisture and generate higher Btu's. I wonder if the Senator could comment briefly as to the area in Wyoming, as well, that could be available for oil and gas and coal exploration but has been withdrawn by the administration, and the rationale behind that; if those areas were open, what they might contribute to lessen our dependence on imports.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. This proposal of a floor and a ceiling for somewhere in the area of $14 to $17 would guarantee them an opportunity to continue when prices dropped below a figure and when ordinarily they would cease to exist because they couldn't operate below that price.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from West Virginia because I think his years of experience and participation in this body on energy matters is a legacy to which he continues to contribute, and we can learn a great deal from his advice. I thank my friend. I believe the Senator from Wyoming would like recognition at this time. I ask how much time he would require.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, could the order standing on the floor at this time be indicated.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, at the time Senate Report No. 150 was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a joint hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Foreign Relations. The hearing is titled: ``America at Risk: U.S. Dependency on Foreign Oil.'' The hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 28, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources or the Committee on Foreign Relations. For further information, please call Trici Heninger or Howard Useem at (202) 224-7875. subcommittee on energy research, development, production, and regulation

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. For Thursday, March 23 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 consider the nomination of Thomas A. Fry III, to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. For further information, please contact David Dye of the committee staff at (202) 224-0624. Committee on energy and Natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to establish a bilateral U.S. and Canadian commission to study the feasibility of extending the continental railroad system to Alaska via a land link through Canada. Mr. President, there are three things critical to the establishment of long-term economic stability for any state, region or country. The first is the availability of resources necessary to the production of goods. The second is the availability of labor to manufacture those goods. And the third is the availability of transportation systems to get those goods to market. My State of Alaska, unfortunately, remains deficient in the third of these critical elements. We have the resources, and we have the labor, but we do not yet have the same essential transportation infrastructure. The idea of connecting the transcontinental rail system to Alaska is not a new one. The original congressional action to establish the Alaska Railroad called for laying 1,000 miles of track in Alaska, which would have been sufficient to carry it to the Alaska-Yukon border. Canada has at various times also looked at rail connections to the north country. Unfortunately, none of these have been carried through. During World War II, the United States actually surveyed a route from Prince George, British Columbia all the way through Alaska to tidewater at Teller, on Alaska's Seward Peninsula. But again, this effort was never completed, largely due to wartime shortages of steel. While someday it would be beneficial to follow through on that World War II plan, what I am proposing today is far less grandiose. My bill would create a process for appointing members to the U.S. side of a bilateral commission to study the feasibility of extending the current continental rail system from its present terminus in British Columbia, through the Yukon Territory, to the present terminus of the Alaska Railroad near Fairbanks. The distance to be traversed is on the order of 1,200 miles. Mr. President, this is not pie in the sky. I believe that the extension of the railroad would pay for itself, not immediately, but in the forseeable future. The area through which the rail line would pass holds some of the richest mineral prospects in North America. The Yukon-Tanana uplands stretch from Fairbanks down through much of the Yukon. This heavily mineralized area holds gold, silver, copper, nickel, lead and zinc in great quantities, plus substantial amounts of other elements. Further south along the possible routes, there are large quantities of high value timber, and vast amounts of lower quality wood that we now utilize for paper, fiberboard and other products. Mr. President, some individuals and organizations will no doubt argue against even exploring this prospect because of a bias against the use of natural resources, or opposition to ``development'' in the wilderness. To them I would suggest that the construction of a railroad is an opportunity to control development--to avoid areas of particular sensitivity--which would be impossible with other transportation systems. A rail line has far less of a ``footprint'' than even a one- lane road, and its stops are known quantities. Properly constructed, a rail line would make possible the development of vast resources, without creating the kind of uncontrolled situation that can lead to the degradation of highly valued wild lands. Others may point to the current volume of freight moving to and from Alaska and say, ``There is no way such a tiny amount of freight can support a railroad.'' They would be missing the point. The question is not whether rail is a more effective means to carry the existing volume, it is whether access to rail would spur enough new economic activity to support the venture. I suggest that it might. Experts have suggested there may be the potential for up to 120 million tons of freight per year, which would be more than enough to pay back any investment. I am not an expert. I cannot verify that contention, any more than I can refute it. That is why we need a comprehensive feasibility study. In January, a conference to discuss the potential for such an extension was held in Vancouver, British Columbia. Participants were extraordinarily supportive, adopting a strong resolution in favor of proceeding with a joint U.S.-Canada study. I have drawn from that resolution to prepare the legislation I am introducing today. Specifically, it would provide authorization to for a $6 million, five-year effort to refine our understanding of both the positives and the negatives of a rail extension. This is in no way an attempt to second-guess the feasibility process. We need an objective, thorough survey of both costs and opportunities. To that end, I am suggesting that the United States component of the commission include local government, business, academic and Alaska Native leaders with expertise in the relevant fields. I am confident that Canada will choose similarly well-qualified individuals for its own side of the commission. Let's make no mistake about this--it is not universally supported, and I want my colleagues to be aware of that from the very beginning. Most of those who currently operate companies carrying goods to and from Alaska by truck and by water will find all kinds of reasons to suggest that there is no way a railroad can be made to work. Mr. President, it is only natural that those with a vested interest in the status quo should oppose change. It is their absolute right to do so. But it is wrong to stifle debate. We should be free to accept and explore new ideas. That is what this commission is all about. If the railroad connection is economically and environmentally and socially sound, then let's move ahead. If it is not, then let's drop it. But at the very least, let's give it an honest hearing. That's what this bill is about. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to recognize an Alaskan that has done so very much for his state and his community. I am referring to Mike Kelly, the President, General Manager and Chief Executive of Operations of Golden Valley Electric Association of Fairbanks, Alaska. You see Mr. Kelly retired last week after 33 years of service--the last 17 as President--service not just to his company, but to the citizens of Alaska. Mr. Kelly is a recognized leader within Alaska's utility industry. Over the past three decades he has grown Interior Alaska's sole electric co-operative into a multi-million-dollar enterprise providing reliable electric service to more than 80,000 people. And providing dependable electric service in Alaska is no small feat. Keeping power flowing in a state where temperatures vary by 150 degrees between summer and winter and where high winds, blizzards and harsh conditions are common, requires skill, organization and perseverance. And his leadership is even more remarkable in that he has accomplished this level of excellence without raising his company's power rates once in the last 18 years. Mr. Kelly has dedicated his career at GVEA to fighting for projects and progress that have benefitted consumers both in Alaska's Railbelt and in Alaska's remotest regions. He spearheaded GVEA's successful purchase of the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System, has been the prime mover in the construction of the Northern (power) Intertie Project and has served well in many leadership positions within the industry and in the community of Fairbanks. He has volunteered to share his skills and leadership with many organizations, including the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club of Fairbanks, and the Fairbanks Industrial Development Corp., along with the Boards of Fairbanks Memorial Hospital Foundation and Denali State Bank. He is the winner of the Northwest Public Power Association Raver Award (1986) for displaying outstanding community service through leadership. He was the 1999 recipient of the Mason Lazelle Award, the highest honor awarded by the industry in Alaska. And he has been singled out for well deserved recognition by the Associated Students of Business, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Alumni Association as the Outstanding Alumni of the Year, and by many other groups. While Mr. Kelly now will have more time to spend on the river fishing, out hunting and with his family, I'm sure Alaska has not seen the last of his efforts on behalf of Fairbanks and the state has a whole. My congratulations go to him for his many accomplishments and Nancy and I offer our best wishes for a wonderful retirement. Alaska is a better place because of your service to your city and your state.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to establish a bilateral U.S. and Canadian commission to study the feasibility of extending the continental railroad system to Alaska via a land link through Canada. Mr. President, there are three things critical to the establishment of long-term economic stability for any state, region or country. The first is the availability of resources necessary to the production of goods. The second is the availability of labor to manufacture those goods. And the third is the availability of transportation systems to get those goods to market. My State of Alaska, unfortunately, remains deficient in the third of these critical elements. We have the resources, and we have the labor, but we do not yet have the same essential transportation infrastructure. The idea of connecting the transcontinental rail system to Alaska is not a new one. The original congressional action to establish the Alaska Railroad called for laying 1,000 miles of track in Alaska, which would have been sufficient to carry it to the Alaska-Yukon border. Canada has at various times also looked at rail connections to the north country. Unfortunately, none of these have been carried through. During World War II, the United States actually surveyed a route from Prince George, British Columbia all the way through Alaska to tidewater at Teller, on Alaska's Seward Peninsula. But again, this effort was never completed, largely due to wartime shortages of steel. While someday it would be beneficial to follow through on that World War II plan, what I am proposing today is far less grandiose. My bill would create a process for appointing members to the U.S. side of a bilateral commission to study the feasibility of extending the current continental rail system from its present terminus in British Columbia, through the Yukon Territory, to the present terminus of the Alaska Railroad near Fairbanks. The distance to be traversed is on the order of 1,200 miles. Mr. President, this is not pie in the sky. I believe that the extension of the railroad would pay for itself, not immediately, but in the forseeable future. The area through which the rail line would pass holds some of the richest mineral prospects in North America. The Yukon-Tanana uplands stretch from Fairbanks down through much of the Yukon. This heavily mineralized area holds gold, silver, copper, nickel, lead and zinc in great quantities, plus substantial amounts of other elements. Further south along the possible routes, there are large quantities of high value timber, and vast amounts of lower quality wood that we now utilize for paper, fiberboard and other products. Mr. President, some individuals and organizations will no doubt argue against even exploring this prospect because of a bias against the use of natural resources, or opposition to ``development'' in the wilderness. To them I would suggest that the construction of a railroad is an opportunity to control development--to avoid areas of particular sensitivity--which would be impossible with other transportation systems. A rail line has far less of a ``footprint'' than even a one- lane road, and its stops are known quantities. Properly constructed, a rail line would make possible the development of vast resources, without creating the kind of uncontrolled situation that can lead to the degradation of highly valued wild lands. Others may point to the current volume of freight moving to and from Alaska and say, ``There is no way such a tiny amount of freight can support a railroad.'' They would be missing the point. The question is not whether rail is a more effective means to carry the existing volume, it is whether access to rail would spur enough new economic activity to support the venture. I suggest that it might. Experts have suggested there may be the potential for up to 120 million tons of freight per year, which would be more than enough to pay back any investment. I am not an expert. I cannot verify that contention, any more than I can refute it. That is why we need a comprehensive feasibility study. In January, a conference to discuss the potential for such an extension was held in Vancouver, British Columbia. Participants were extraordinarily supportive, adopting a strong resolution in favor of proceeding with a joint U.S.-Canada study. I have drawn from that resolution to prepare the legislation I am introducing today. Specifically, it would provide authorization to for a $6 million, five-year effort to refine our understanding of both the positives and the negatives of a rail extension. This is in no way an attempt to second-guess the feasibility process. We need an objective, thorough survey of both costs and opportunities. To that end, I am suggesting that the United States component of the commission include local government, business, academic and Alaska Native leaders with expertise in the relevant fields. I am confident that Canada will choose similarly well-qualified individuals for its own side of the commission. Let's make no mistake about this--it is not universally supported, and I want my colleagues to be aware of that from the very beginning. Most of those who currently operate companies carrying goods to and from Alaska by truck and by water will find all kinds of reasons to suggest that there is no way a railroad can be made to work. Mr. President, it is only natural that those with a vested interest in the status quo should oppose change. It is their absolute right to do so. But it is wrong to stifle debate. We should be free to accept and explore new ideas. That is what this commission is all about. If the railroad connection is economically and environmentally and socially sound, then let's move ahead. If it is not, then let's drop it. But at the very least, let's give it an honest hearing. That's what this bill is about. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think I understand more than many the anger many Americans feel when they see gasoline pump prices at $1.80 a gallon or higher. But I also think it is unfortunate that the Clinton- Gore administration has, for 8 years, kind of lulled Americans into believing that an unlimited supply of relatively cheap gasoline will be available from our so-called friends in OPEC. As a consequence of that false sense of security, America's soccer moms, with the idea of running the kids here and there, have gone out and spent tens of millions of dollars on sport utility vehicles that barely get 15 miles a gallon. With today's gas prices, they find when they fill up one of those SUVs that it can put a big hole in a $100 bill. It will cost $70 or $80. It is almost certain that gasoline will hit $2 a gallon this summer because our refineries are not refining gasoline because they are still refining heating oil. Since they have not shut down for the conversion, we won't have on hand the reserves necessary to meet the requirements for the families in this country who are used to driving long distances in the summertime. It is going to happen. We are going to get $2-a-gallon gasoline. Americans I don't think should blame OPEC when the fault lies clearly with the Clinton-Gore administration and their energy policy, which is really no policy. They have no policy on coal, they have no policy on oil, and they have no policy on hydro other than it is nonrenewable, and they have no policy on natural gas. They say that is the savior. But they won't open up public land for oil and gas exploration, particularly in the upper belt of the Rocky Mountains, my State of Alaska, and the OCS areas. What they propose is to put the Secretary of Energy on an airplane and send him over to Saudi Arabia with his hand out begging the Saudis to produce more oil. They made that trip; they made that request. And the Saudis said: We have a meeting of OPEC March 27. He said: No, you don't understand. There is an emergency in the United States. We need you to produce more oil. They said: You don't understand, Mr. Secretary. Our meeting is March 27. That is hardly an adequate response to a nation that went over there and fought a war so that Saddam Hussein could not take over Kuwait. That war was about oil. We sought relief from the non-OPEC nations of Mexico and Venezuela. The Mexicans said: Well, isn't it rather ironic, when oil was $11, 12, and $13 a barrel and the Mexican economy was in the tank and in shambles, where were the Americans? Was the administration trying to help us out? We weren't there. So we got stiffed. We got poked in the eye. Now we see oil fluctuating from $34 a barrel a couple of days ago. It dropped $3. It went up again today. The point is, we are dependent on imports and we are increasing that dependence. Since the very first day this administration took office in 1993, they declared war on domestic energy producers. The first proposal they sent to the Congress--this is very important, because some of you do not have a memory of 1993. But the Clinton administration proposed to the Congress a new $70 billion tax on fossil fuel produced in this country. That was a tax they planned with inflation indexing so that it would go up every single year. On top of that, they tried to add $8 billion in new motor fuel taxes and $1 billion in taxes on barge fuel. Do you remember that, Mr. President? This Senator from Alaska does. A lot of folks in the administration would like us to forget that. I hope we will not forget that. The Democratically-controlled Congress delivered to President Clinton $42 billion in new motor vehicle taxes in the form of a 30-percent gas tax increase. The Democratically-controlled Congress delivered to President Clinton $42 billion in new motor fuel taxes in the form of a 30-percent gas tax increase, and not a single Republican voted for that gas tax hike. We were joined by six Democrats, which resulted in what? A 50-50 tie vote. But the $42 billion gas tax hike became reality for every single American because the Vice President, Al Gore, cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of this tax hike. That is a fact, and the Record will so note. It will be interesting to hear his explanation. We heard an explanation not so long ago that, if elected, he would cancel the OCS leases. Where does he propose to get energy from, the tooth fairy? I believe today, when gasoline is selling for more than $2 a gallon in some parts of the country, we should suspend the 30-percent Clinton/ Gore tax increase. That is the least we can do to help the American motorist. We can make sure the highway trust fund is reimbursed for any lost revenue so we can ensure that all highway construction that is authorized will be constructed and that we don't jeopardize that. I believe it is appropriate for this payback to the trust fund because the Clinton/Gore gas tax was not used for highway construction. It was used for government spending until Republicans took over Congress and authorized the tax to be restored for highway construction. That is a short-term fix, but I think a realistic and achievable one. Mr. President, barely a month ago, when heating oil prices were at their peak, what did the President propose? another $2.5 billion tax increase on the oil industry. Let me assure everyone in this chamber that those proposals are dead on arrival, as they should be. It is not just higher energy taxes that the President demands. What has he done on the supply side? In a word, nothing. This administration has done nothing to open federal lands for exploration and development of oil and gas. We should develop the overthrust belt of the Rocky Mountains and some of the OCS areas. The administration refuses to budge on the most promising oil field in America, ANWR. It is simply off limits. And they demand moratoriums on offshore, and on and on. There is the story. Petroleum demands go up, and crude production goes down. That is where we are. It is as simple at that. Mr. President, some people say that the administration does not have an energy policy. I would disagree with that statement. The Clinton- Gore administration does have an energy policy. It's goal is simply to stop energy production in the United States and make this country completely dependent on foreign oil. When Bill Clinton took office, we imported 43 percent of our oil. Today, foreign oil accounts for 56 percent of domestic consumption. This isn't going to come as a surprise to the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy says the U.S. will be 65 percent in the year 2020--somewhere between 2010, 2015, and 2020. That seems to be the goal of this administration rather than trying to do something about it. And the predictable result of this irrational policy: We send the Secretary of Energy with hat in hand begging OPEC to raise production. The Sheiks in the Middle East must be laughing all the way to the bank as they contemplate how this administration has turned America into a dependent of OPEC. They must view with mild amusement the irrational pie-in-the sky policies that this administration has tried to sell to the American people. Would this administration support building more nuclear facilities to reduce our dependence on OPEC? NO! Would they support building new non-polluting hydro-electric facilities to reduce our dependence on OPEC? No. In fact, in what must be one of the most naive proposals from this Administration, they have been proposing tearing down dams that have been providing power for decades. Tearing down dams at a time when we are 56 percent dependent on imported oil is simply unconscionable. How would we replace this lost source of power? Does the administration support building more coal fired power plants? No. So how do President Clinton and Vice President Gore propose that we generate energy to run our industry and fuel our transportation system? Year in and year out what we hear from this administration is one word: Renewables--solar, wind, and geothermal. I know the Administration is always emphasizing renewable energy as the best option. They are all important, but they constitute less than 4 percent of U.S. energy production and for the foreseeable future are not going to make a dent in our energy production. I hope someday renewables will play a bigger role. We have to face reality. In 25 years, if there are technological breakthroughs, they may play a more important role, but today they have almost no role. Face it: Today there are no solar airplanes; there are no economically feasible solar automobiles; there are no wind-powered, solar-powered trains. it gets dark in Alaska in the winter. None of these concepts is on the drawing board. The fact that the administration does not want to face up to this is evident up to now and in the foreseeable future. This administration hopes they can get out of town before the crisis hits, the calamity of the American public asking: What have you done? You sold our energy security to the Saudis and some of the other Third World nations. For 8 years, this administration has been blind to the facts and lived in a renewable dream world. Today, the American consumer is paying the price for the failed energy policies of the Clinton-Gore administration. Today's gas prices may wake us up and call the country to the recognition that we have to begin to address, with long-term solutions, our energy security issues. If we don't do that, we may look back on March 2000 as the good old days when gasoline was only $1.70 a gallon. As we propose taking off this 4.3 percent, I look forward to the administration's response as to how the Vice President broke that tie. He and the administration are responsible for the tax costing the American consumer $43 billion.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I see the Senator from California. I see the majority leader noticeably present on the floor. I am curious to know about the procedure. Are we going to continue?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. And the leader, of course, will go on for whatever time is necessary. I ask unanimous consent for that time allotment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to talk a bit about the matter before us, the judicial nominations of Paez and Berzon. I have listened to the debate today, and it is fair to say, to a large degree, the Ninth Circuit Court has made itself the target. The suggestion was made the Ninth Circuit is in the middle of the pack with regard to reversals. Thirty-three percent of the reversals over the last 3 years have come out of the Ninth Circuit Court. I have talked to judges in that court. They are so frustrated by the caseload and their inability to follow the cases in the court that they privately and publicly suggest something be done. We have been at this for a long time. We have been discussing it, we have been arguing, we have been debating how we split it up. Naturally, California is a little reluctant to see it split up, for lots of reasons which I do not think are necessary to go into. The reality is this body has an obligation of timely justice, and timely justice is not being done in the Ninth Circuit for a couple of reasons. It serves the largest population of all the circuits. The judges can't handle all the cases. Legal reasoning has been abandoned in favor of extremist views. The Ninth Circuit has invited this upon itself. The point I make is, we have an obligation on our watch to do something about this problem. We have to do it. It is inevitable. This week I introduced legislation to split the Ninth Circuit. These two nominees are perfect examples of why my bill should be passed immediately by this body. Senator Hatch and other are co-sponsoring this bill. The Ninth Circuit is already plagued with a very activist group on the judiciary who bring their causes to the bench with them. But let's look at the number of cases that have been reversed by the Supreme Court. This chart shows the number of cases reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court between 1997 and 1999. The statement has been made that the Ninth Circuit court is somewhere in the middle. It is more than the middle. The Ninth Circuit has almost a quarter of all the court reversals in all of our circuit courts. Next is followed by the Eighth Circuit and then the Fifth Circuit. It is not a factual statement to suggest that the reversals in the Ninth Circuit are somewhere in the middle. We have another chart I will describe to you as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that is out of control. From 1994 to the year 2000, the number of decisions reversed, 86 percent; decisions upheld, 14 percent. If this followed a pattern in the other circuit courts, I would not be up here arguing; but it is far too high. It suggests it is out of control. The reality is that 86 percent of the decisions were reversed in that period, from 1994 to the year 2000; and 14 percent of the decisions were upheld by the Supreme Court. These are people who were denied justice--at great cost. Let's look at the reason why it is so obvious that we have to do something about it. It is the caseload. Look at the growth of the caseload. From 1991 through the year 2000, it has gone from 7,500 to 9,500. It continues to increase. What they will tell you is it is increasing beyond a manageable level. We all know something about managers and management. Some of us are better managers than others; some are worse than others. But you have some real problems when the judges cannot follow the decisions that are coming out of the court. They will be the first ones to acknowledge that. Let me show you a chart referencing the population in relation to the other circuit courts because that is very important. The circuit courts are depicted on this chart--the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, currently the Ninth, the Tenth, and Eleventh. I want to move this chart up a little bit. I am not sure the Presiding Officer can see it. This is the story. It is cold, hard facts. Here is the Ninth Circuit shown on the chart. It is almost off the chart. The Ninth Circuit will increase 26 percent by the year 2010. It is at 50 million now. That is the problem. We have to split it. The question is, who is going to accept the responsibility? Are we going to put it off? The longer we put it off, the less timely justice prevails. We owe this to the residents of the States affected. They ought to have something to say about it. We are saying we want it changed. We do not hear that from California. But the other States say they want a change; they want an equitable change. What have we done? We have reached out and tried to get opinions of people who know something about the problem. Everybody is an expert; and everybody can get an expert. But the Supreme Court agrees that reform is needed. How much higher do you have to go? Here is what they say: The disproportionate segment of this Court's discretionary docket that is consistently devoted to reviewing Ninth Circuit judgments, and reversing them by lop-sided margins, suggests that this error-reduction function is not being performed effectively. That means justice is not being done. That is Justice Scalia. With respect to the Ninth Circuit in particular, in my view the circuit is simply too large. Isn't that what it shows? That is Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In my opinion the arguments in favor of dividing the Circuit into either two or three smaller circuits overwhelmingly outweigh the single serious objection to such a change. These are the Supreme Court Justices who have to make these reversals. I have another chart. You can read, at your leisure, what retired Supreme Court Chief Justice William Burger said. I strongly believe that the 9th Circuit is far too cumbersome and it should be divided. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: I have increasing doubts and increasing reservations about the wisdom of retaining the Ninth Circuit in its historic size, and with its historic jurisdiction. We have very dedicated judges on that circuit, very scholarly judges . . . But I think institutionally, and from the collegial standpoint, that it is too large to have the discipline and control that's necessary for an effective circuit. We have a hard enough time controlling discipline here, and there are only 100 of us--plus 100 egos. But I will not go into that. We (the Ninth Circuit) cannot grow without limit . . . As the number of opinions increases. . . . That is the Honorable Diarmuid O'Scannlain, a Ninth Circuit judge, I might add. Our former colleague, Senator Mark O. Hatfield: The increased likelihood of intracircuit conflicts is an important justification for splitting the Court. There you have it, one of our own. In my opinion, this matter before us is further evidence of the necessity of splitting the court. The circuit is already plagued with activists on the judiciary who bring their causes to the bench with them. I do not think that is appropriate. One simply has to look at the rate of reversals to find the proof. I have gone into that. Now is the time for Congress to stop this unwieldy circuit. I hope we will because our inaction is only going to weaken an already detached and out of control circuit. Most shocking is that the nominees do little to deflect accusations that they share an activist judicial philosophy. Justice Paez, in his own words, stated that he ``appreciate[s] . . . the need of the courts to act when they must, when the issue has been generated as a result of the failure of the political process to resolve a certain political question. . . .'' He then continues: There's no choice but for the courts to resolve the question that perhaps ideally and preferably should be resolved through the legislative process. I think that statement deserves a great deal of thought and consideration because he is implying that if we don't take care of it through the political process, this judge is going to simply take action into his own hands. I am not ready for that. That, to me, is a flag. One does not have to be a legal scholar to see that this is a blatant infringement upon the Constitution, the Constitution we rely upon to protect ourselves from improper Government actions. Article I, as I know the Chair is familiar, clearly states that ``[a]ll legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'' Should this body abdicate its role and confirm nominees who openly defy the Constitution? I hope we will all answer with a resounding ``no.'' Unfortunately, Judge Paez's background goes far beyond activist judicial decisions. I think we should all pause and reflect upon a nomination for which the director of the ACLU in Southern California states: It's been a while since we had these kinds of appointments to the federal court. I think it's a welcome change after all the pro-law enforcement people we have seen appointed to the state and federal courts. That sends another message to me. I am not sure this judge is going to have the balance necessary to protect our law enforcement people. They need a lot of protection. They are hit by the press. They are hit by mistakes. They are hit by the exposure they have out there, protecting our property and protecting us. We owe more to the men and women who risk their lives each and every day to maintain law and order. We owe more to Americans who see crime around every corner. There is a lot of it, and a lot of them see it. Time and time again, Judge Paez has demonstrated a lack of proper judicial temperament. We should be able to agree that judges should be impartial and not speak out on matters that may appear before their court. I think we do agree on that. Yet Paez, during the California Proposition 209 ballot initiative debate which would have ended racial quotas and discrimination by the State government, labeled the proposal ``anti-civil rights'' and said it would ``inflame the issue all over again without contributing to any serious discussion.'' I am realist enough to recognize that people in California and their elected representation have a better understanding of this than I do. It sounds a little strange and uncomfortable to me. A judge is expected to remain impartial. Certainly, they should not comment upon efforts by the citizens of California, in their wisdom, to pass a legal and constitutional ballot initiative. Judicial Cannon 4(A)(1) alone requires that a judge do nothing ``to cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge.'' This is not a person who should be deciding cases that affect 50 million people in our circuit court. Here, again, is the chart that shows the proof of why this court is out of control. I also find it ironic that supporters of Marsha Berzon are the very people who claim to be advocates of campaign finance ``reform.'' It is interesting because there are some political overtones there. There probably are going to be some more. While quick to target political speech by national parties, they seem to have turned a blind eye to true injustice in our campaign finance system. I am referring to the forced speech that large and radical unions placed upon their willing members. Many of the union members acknowledge that privately; they are a little hesitant to do it publicly. The majority has worked hard to open the workforce to all Americans and to remove automatic payroll contributions to unions for political ads of which members disapprove. Shouldn't those members have a right? I think so. Now the Clinton administration has sent us a judicial nominee who has been labeled by the National Right to Work Committee as the ``worst'' Clinton appointee in terms of labor issues. I wonder how objective that person is. While representing the Nation's most powerful unions, Ms. Berzon stated that mandatory union dues ``implicates first amendment values only to a very limited degree.'' I wonder how limited that is. Thankfully, the Supreme Court struck down this logic in Communication Workers of America v. Beck. Look at the Ninth Circuit's already startling reversal rate by the Supreme Court. In 1997, it was 95 percent. One can imagine an even more detached judiciary with the addition of Ms. Berzon. This period this chart shows is for the years 1994 through 2000: 86 percent of the decisions reversed, only 14 upheld. That is a reflection on the court, and it is a reflection on us for not doing something about it. Mr. Paez is no stranger to the reform debate. During a time when we expect firm and fair enforcement of our Nation's financing laws, Judge Paez gave one individual an unusually light sentence after he admitted to accepting more than $250,000 in illegal campaign contributions. This is the largest acknowledged receipt of illegal contributions in congressional history, except for POGO maybe. We have 300-some-odd thousand in reward money out there that we have to investigate. There are going to be some heads rolling once that is made public and the public and this body understands how that system of whistleblowers works. What was the sentence? The sentence was 1 year on probation and 200 hours of community service. This is for $250,000 illegal campaign contributions. This is the real problem in campaign financing. I could go on for a long time. I see the Senator from Maryland waiting to be recognized. I could continue listing the seemingly countless reasons why these two nominees should be rejected by this Senate. But, I find that unnecessary. There really is only one reason. Because the people of the Ninth Circuit deserve better. They deserve better. They deserve a justice system that reflects the temperament of the society. They deserve a judiciary that creates dependable case law by following judicial precedent. They deserve a judiciary that provides swift yet fair justice. Most importantly, they deserve a judiciary that follows the Constitution and the rule of law and objectivity. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the two nominations before us prior to the vote this afternoon. I yield the floor.