Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder, after the majority leader speaks and the Senator from California speaks, if I could be recognized, in that order. Might I ask the senior Senator from California how long she will speak?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak in morning business for 12 minutes or thereabouts.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I recognize the leader's time has been utilized and not counted against the time prior to going into morning business. I ask unanimous consent that when the managers are finished and morning business is taken up, I be allowed 10 minutes to introduce a bill. I yield for my friend from South Carolina who is seeking recognition.

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 Tuesday, April 11, 2000 at 10 a.m. and Thursday, April 13, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 282 Transition to Competition in the Electric Industry Act; S. 516 Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999; S. 1047 Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act; S. 1284 Electric Consumer Choice Act; S. 1273 Federal Power Act Amendments of 1999; S. 1369 Clean Energy Act of 1999; S. 2071 Electric Reliability 2000 Act; and S. 2098 Electric Power Market Competition and Reliability Act. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger at (202) 224- 7875. Committee on Small Business

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 30, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 882, To strengthen provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 with respect to potential Climate Change; and S. 1776, To amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to revise the energy policies of the United States in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, advance global climate science, promote technology development, and increase citizen awareness, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant, or Bryan Hannegan, Science Fellow, at (202) 224-4971. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me advise you, yesterday at the close of business, the posted price of oil was $34.13 a barrel. The Dow was down 374 points. The share price of one company, Procter & Gamble, plunged 30 percent as a consequence of their third quarter profits falling off because of the high cost of oil. We have a crisis in this country. Today, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of myself and 33 other Members that I believe, and they believe with me, offers the United States its best chance to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; that is, by producing more oil domestically. We have seen the oil price rise in the last year from roughly $10 to over $30 a barrel. That is a pretty dramatic increase. There is an inflation factor associated with this. While we have not really addressed it, it is fair to say that for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, there is an inflation factor of about a half of 1 percent. Alan Greenspan has been quoted as saying, ``I have never seen a price spike on oil that I have ever ignored.'' So we are now in a situation where we have seen heating oil prices in the Northeast reach historic highs this winter, nearly $2 a gallon. We are seeing a surcharge on our airline tickets of $20. You do not see it at the counter where you buy your ticket; of course not. You do not know what the price of a ticket generally is because they have so many prices between point A and point B. But it is there. It is $20. The American public ought to be questioning that. They at least ought to be aware of it, if they do not question it. Regarding diesel prices, we saw the truckers come to Washington, DC. Diesel prices are the highest since the Department of Energy began tracking. We are in a crisis. We have to do something about it. There are many factors that contribute to the price structure of each particular fuel, but underlying all of these, without a doubt, is our reliance on imported crude oil. We are 56-percent dependent on foreign crude oil. The current reserves indicate we are consuming twice as much crude in the U.S., as we are able to produce domestically. I had the professional staff of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee trying to do a forecast, with the Department of Energy--we have a net decline because we are using more crude reserves than we are bringing in--about what time the bear goes through the buckwheat; that is, when perhaps we are looking at $2 a gallon, $2.50 a gallon for gasoline. Relief is not in sight as yet. The worst part of it is this did not come without some warning. Those of us from oil-producing States, my State of Alaska, the overthrust belt--Louisiana Senators, Texas, Mississippi, other areas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming--have been predicting the dangers of increased dependence on imported oil. The administration, Department of Energy, has forecast by the years 2015 to 2020 we will be approaching 65- percent dependence on imported oil. The problem with that is it looks now as if that is a goal rather than a forecast. They are not taking any steps to relieve us of that dependency. The facts, I think, are staggering. If you look at what is happening in this country, domestic production has decreased 17 percent since 1990. That is a fact. Consumption, however, has increased 14 percent. I have a chart to show this. It shows, I think very clearly, what is happening in this country. We are seeing the demand, and that is the black line here, going, in 1990, from 16 million to 19 million barrels per day. So what is happening is we see a constant demand going up. Then what happens on the offset? Where is the crude production? The crude production is declining, from 7.4 to a domestic production of 5.9. This reflects the reality of what has been happening. This should not come as a great surprise to the Department of Energy, the Clinton administration, or the Congress of the United States. This has been coming for some time. In one year, total petroleum net imports rose 7.6 percent. So, as we look for relief, we look towards imports. Now we are 56-percent dependent. What does it mean? It means we do not learn from history. We do not learn much. In 1973, when we had the Arab oil embargo--some people remember the gasoline lines around the block--at that time, we were 37-percent dependent on imported oil. We said it would never happen again. We said we would create a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ensure we were not held hostage. What did other countries do? Different things. The French, for example, said they would never be held hostage by the Mideast again, and they departed on a nuclear program so that today the French are over 90-percent dependent on nuclear energy. We do not have that situation in the United States. I simply point that out to direct attention to what some countries have done with their energy policy vis-a-vis others. What we have done is very little. We fought a war over in the Mideast, didn't we? We fought that war, Desert Storm, to keep Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait and taking over those oil fields. During Desert Storm, we were 46-percent dependent. Today we are held hostage to aggressive OPEC pricing policies. What has our response been? Secretary of Energy Richardson went to the Mideast. Some suggest it was the greatest hostage recovery effort since the Carter administration sent the military to Tehran. He went there and said: We have an emergency in the United States. We have a crisis. We need you to produce more oil. Do you know what they told him? They looked him in the eye and they said: We are going to have a meeting March 27 and we will address our policies then. That is hardly responding to an emergency, particularly at a time when he reminded them of how quickly we responded to the emergency when Saddam Hussein was about to invade Kuwait. Nevertheless, that is reality, that is business, that is the attitude of OPEC. This time the hostage is our country, our energy security--and the rescue mission is flawed. We can look to the non-OPEC countries for relief. We can look to Venezuela. We can look to Mexico. I happened to have a little feedback from Mexico. We went down to Mexico. The Secretary met with them and said we need you to produce more oil. There was a message, and that message that came back from Mexico is: Where was the United States when the Mexican economy was in the tank? When oil was selling at $11 a barrel, were you, the United States, doing anything to help out Mexico and its economy? Clearly, we were not. We were very happy to get $11, $12 oil. So somebody said: If the shoe fits, wear it. We have been stiffed. We have been poked in the eye because OPEC is saying: Ho, ho, the United States--do you know what the United States could do, if they wanted to do a favor for the consumer? They can waive all their taxes, waive all the highway taxes, waive all the State taxes. That will bring the price down. It is an interesting suggestion. Obviously, it is unacceptable to us and an indignity, but I think it is sobering to recognize that is their proposed answer. The irony that Iraq has emerged as the fastest growing source of U.S. oil imports is something beyond comprehension. We need to question where we are placing the Nation's energy security. Are we placing it with Saddam Hussein? That is where our imported oil is coming. Our own Government agencies question this policy. Isn't that interesting? They question the policy they make. Here is the statement on a chart. This is at a time when the administration is suppressing domestic production. This is from the Minerals Management Service: Much of the imported oil that the United States depends on comes from areas of the world that may be hostile to the interest of the United States and where political instability is a concern. That speaks for itself. The Mideast is unstable. We see our friends in Libya, Iran, Iraq, and now the relationship between Iran and Iraq seems to be closer than it ever was. We are caught in the middle. In the meantime, What has happened to our domestic industry? It is interesting. We have seen in the oil industry a 28-percent decline in jobs, a 77-percent decline in oil rigs that are used in exploration, and we have seen a 7-percent decline in reserves. That is the largest decline in 53 years. This is what we are doing, particularly under this administration, relative to encouraging domestic exploration and drilling: Rigs drilling for oil are down from 657 in 1990 to roughly 153 in 2000. What has our energy policy been under the Clinton-Gore administration? Coal: Highly dependent on coal. But EPA filed a lawsuit against eight electric utilities with coal-fired powerplants. The lawsuit says these plants have been allowed to extend beyond their lifespan, and the management says they are trying to maintain these plants according to the permitting process and not necessarily extending their life. One gets a different point of view, but clearly there is going to be employment for a lot of attorneys. Hydro: Secretary Babbitt wants to be the first Secretary to tear down dams. It is estimated by my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest that if the dams go down, we are going to see roughly 2,000 trucks per day on the highways to replace the barge service, particularly in Oregon, and the environmental air quality and congestion issues will be significant. Nuclear power: The administration opposes this. They do not want to address what they are going to do with nuclear waste on their watch. Natural gas: It is the fuel of the future, but they have closed so much of the public lands; 60 percent of the overthrust belt is off limits in the Rocky Mountain area, which is Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. They estimate there is 137 trillion cubic feet of gas out there. And as a consequence, but they have put 60 percent of the area off limits. Let's look at one more thing. If we look at our reliance on natural gas and oil, we recognize that we are not going to change over the next 20 or 25 years, as much as we would like to have greater dependence on alternative energy sources. The realization is the technology is not there. We have to continue to encourage them. The real answer is long- term and short-term relief. There is some short-term potential relief in repealing the Clinton-Gore gas tax hike. With prices at the pump steadily rising, one thing we can do is suspend the 4.3 cent-per-gallon Clinton-Gore gas tax. That came in 1993. The Democratic Congress, without a single Republican vote, adopted the Clinton-Gore gas tax as part of one of the largest tax increases in history. That tax has cost the American motorist $43 billion over the last 6 years. We can suspend this tax until the end of the year when prices may be stabilized, and we can make sure the highway trust fund is reimbursed for any lost revenue so we can ensure all highway construction authorized will be constructed. It is interesting to note that when Clinton-Gore passed this tax, it 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. Long-term fixes: We need to stimulate the domestic oil and gas industry. We need to get in the overthrust belt. We need the Department of Interior to open up these areas, and we need a long-term fix. It involves legislation that I am introducing to authorize the opening of the Coastal Plain. I will show my colleagues what I am talking about. This is an area that lies in the northeast corner of Alaska, north of the Arctic Circle, 1,300 miles south of the North Pole. The pipeline of Prudhoe Bay over the last 30 years has produced 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country. I will show another chart because we have to put this area in perspective, otherwise you lose it. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge consists of 19 million acres in its entirety. We have set aside in wilderness permanently 8 million acres. We set another 9.5 million acres in refuge, permanently--no drilling, nothing in those two areas. But Congress set aside what they call the 1002 area, the Coastal Plain, for a determination of whether or not to open it for competitive oil and gas bids. The Eskimo people of Kaktovik, a little village there, support exploration in this area. The geologists say it is the most likely area for a significant find. We propose a competitive lease sale. We propose only exploration in the wintertime, that way we will make no footprint on the ground. There is roughly 1.5 million acres on the Coastal Plain. The industry says if they are allowed to develop it with the technology they have, they will use less than 2,000 acres in the entirety of the 1.5 million acres. That is the kind of footprint the technology gives us. As we look at national energy security, we have to look at some long- term solutions because Prudhoe Bay, as can be seen on this chart, shows a good degree of compatibility with abundant wildlife. This shows Prudhoe Bay field and the caribou wandering around. This is the pipeline that goes 800 miles to Valdez. If the oil is where we think it is, we simply extend the pipeline over to Prudhoe Bay and produce it. This chart shows what frequently happens on the pipeline. Here are some bears going for a little walk on the pipeline enjoying the afternoon. They get away from bugs and flies, and it is easier walking on the pipeline than it is in the heavy snow. They know what they are doing. I conclude by recognizing in October our Vice President made a statement that he is going to do everything in his power to make sure there is no new drilling off our coastal areas relative to OCS lease sales. I think that statement is going to come back and haunt the administration and certainly haunt the Vice President because if we do not go for OCS activities, we are not going to go anywhere. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Sierra Club soliciting visitations to Washington to lobby Members of Congress be printed in the Record. The Sierra Club pays for all the meals, all the transportation, and all the lodging for these recruits it is simply reflective of the other point of view and that they are attempting to influence us on this issue. It is a good issue for revenue, for their membership. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the proposed lease sale by the Gwich'in people of Venetie for their lands on the North Slope that they hold, which is about 1.8 million acres. It is necessary that you understand the opposition. This will give you a point of view that, indeed, the opposition was prepared to lease their land. The only unfortunate problem was, there was no oil on it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I encourage my colleagues to look at this legislation and recognize that we have to decrease our dependence on imported oil. The best way to do that is to stimulate domestic production here at home. The Coastal Plain of ANWR is one way to do it. I thank the Chair and wish everybody a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me advise you, yesterday at the close of business, the posted price of oil was $34.13 a barrel. The Dow was down 374 points. The share price of one company, Procter & Gamble, plunged 30 percent as a consequence of their third quarter profits falling off because of the high cost of oil. We have a crisis in this country. Today, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of myself and 33 other Members that I believe, and they believe with me, offers the United States its best chance to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; that is, by producing more oil domestically. We have seen the oil price rise in the last year from roughly $10 to over $30 a barrel. That is a pretty dramatic increase. There is an inflation factor associated with this. While we have not really addressed it, it is fair to say that for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, there is an inflation factor of about a half of 1 percent. Alan Greenspan has been quoted as saying, ``I have never seen a price spike on oil that I have ever ignored.'' So we are now in a situation where we have seen heating oil prices in the Northeast reach historic highs this winter, nearly $2 a gallon. We are seeing a surcharge on our airline tickets of $20. You do not see it at the counter where you buy your ticket; of course not. You do not know what the price of a ticket generally is because they have so many prices between point A and point B. But it is there. It is $20. The American public ought to be questioning that. They at least ought to be aware of it, if they do not question it. Regarding diesel prices, we saw the truckers come to Washington, DC. Diesel prices are the highest since the Department of Energy began tracking. We are in a crisis. We have to do something about it. There are many factors that contribute to the price structure of each particular fuel, but underlying all of these, without a doubt, is our reliance on imported crude oil. We are 56-percent dependent on foreign crude oil. The current reserves indicate we are consuming twice as much crude in the U.S., as we are able to produce domestically. I had the professional staff of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee trying to do a forecast, with the Department of Energy--we have a net decline because we are using more crude reserves than we are bringing in--about what time the bear goes through the buckwheat; that is, when perhaps we are looking at $2 a gallon, $2.50 a gallon for gasoline. Relief is not in sight as yet. The worst part of it is this did not come without some warning. Those of us from oil-producing States, my State of Alaska, the overthrust belt--Louisiana Senators, Texas, Mississippi, other areas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming--have been predicting the dangers of increased dependence on imported oil. The administration, Department of Energy, has forecast by the years 2015 to 2020 we will be approaching 65- percent dependence on imported oil. The problem with that is it looks now as if that is a goal rather than a forecast. They are not taking any steps to relieve us of that dependency. The facts, I think, are staggering. If you look at what is happening in this country, domestic production has decreased 17 percent since 1990. That is a fact. Consumption, however, has increased 14 percent. I have a chart to show this. It shows, I think very clearly, what is happening in this country. We are seeing the demand, and that is the black line here, going, in 1990, from 16 million to 19 million barrels per day. So what is happening is we see a constant demand going up. Then what happens on the offset? Where is the crude production? The crude production is declining, from 7.4 to a domestic production of 5.9. This reflects the reality of what has been happening. This should not come as a great surprise to the Department of Energy, the Clinton administration, or the Congress of the United States. This has been coming for some time. In one year, total petroleum net imports rose 7.6 percent. So, as we look for relief, we look towards imports. Now we are 56-percent dependent. What does it mean? It means we do not learn from history. We do not learn much. In 1973, when we had the Arab oil embargo--some people remember the gasoline lines around the block--at that time, we were 37-percent dependent on imported oil. We said it would never happen again. We said we would create a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ensure we were not held hostage. What did other countries do? Different things. The French, for example, said they would never be held hostage by the Mideast again, and they departed on a nuclear program so that today the French are over 90-percent dependent on nuclear energy. We do not have that situation in the United States. I simply point that out to direct attention to what some countries have done with their energy policy vis-a-vis others. What we have done is very little. We fought a war over in the Mideast, didn't we? We fought that war, Desert Storm, to keep Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait and taking over those oil fields. During Desert Storm, we were 46-percent dependent. Today we are held hostage to aggressive OPEC pricing policies. What has our response been? Secretary of Energy Richardson went to the Mideast. Some suggest it was the greatest hostage recovery effort since the Carter administration sent the military to Tehran. He went there and said: We have an emergency in the United States. We have a crisis. We need you to produce more oil. Do you know what they told him? They looked him in the eye and they said: We are going to have a meeting March 27 and we will address our policies then. That is hardly responding to an emergency, particularly at a time when he reminded them of how quickly we responded to the emergency when Saddam Hussein was about to invade Kuwait. Nevertheless, that is reality, that is business, that is the attitude of OPEC. This time the hostage is our country, our energy security--and the rescue mission is flawed. We can look to the non-OPEC countries for relief. We can look to Venezuela. We can look to Mexico. I happened to have a little feedback from Mexico. We went down to Mexico. The Secretary met with them and said we need you to produce more oil. There was a message, and that message that came back from Mexico is: Where was the United States when the Mexican economy was in the tank? When oil was selling at $11 a barrel, were you, the United States, doing anything to help out Mexico and its economy? Clearly, we were not. We were very happy to get $11, $12 oil. So somebody said: If the shoe fits, wear it. We have been stiffed. We have been poked in the eye because OPEC is saying: Ho, ho, the United States--do you know what the United States could do, if they wanted to do a favor for the consumer? They can waive all their taxes, waive all the highway taxes, waive all the State taxes. That will bring the price down. It is an interesting suggestion. Obviously, it is unacceptable to us and an indignity, but I think it is sobering to recognize that is their proposed answer. The irony that Iraq has emerged as the fastest growing source of U.S. oil imports is something beyond comprehension. We need to question where we are placing the Nation's energy security. Are we placing it with Saddam Hussein? That is where our imported oil is coming. Our own Government agencies question this policy. Isn't that interesting? They question the policy they make. Here is the statement on a chart. This is at a time when the administration is suppressing domestic production. This is from the Minerals Management Service: Much of the imported oil that the United States depends on comes from areas of the world that may be hostile to the interest of the United States and where political instability is a concern. That speaks for itself. The Mideast is unstable. We see our friends in Libya, Iran, Iraq, and now the relationship between Iran and Iraq seems to be closer than it ever was. We are caught in the middle. In the meantime, What has happened to our domestic industry? It is interesting. We have seen in the oil industry a 28-percent decline in jobs, a 77-percent decline in oil rigs that are used in exploration, and we have seen a 7-percent decline in reserves. That is the largest decline in 53 years. This is what we are doing, particularly under this administration, relative to encouraging domestic exploration and drilling: Rigs drilling for oil are down from 657 in 1990 to roughly 153 in 2000. What has our energy policy been under the Clinton-Gore administration? Coal: Highly dependent on coal. But EPA filed a lawsuit against eight electric utilities with coal-fired powerplants. The lawsuit says these plants have been allowed to extend beyond their lifespan, and the management says they are trying to maintain these plants according to the permitting process and not necessarily extending their life. One gets a different point of view, but clearly there is going to be employment for a lot of attorneys. Hydro: Secretary Babbitt wants to be the first Secretary to tear down dams. It is estimated by my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest that if the dams go down, we are going to see roughly 2,000 trucks per day on the highways to replace the barge service, particularly in Oregon, and the environmental air quality and congestion issues will be significant. Nuclear power: The administration opposes this. They do not want to address what they are going to do with nuclear waste on their watch. Natural gas: It is the fuel of the future, but they have closed so much of the public lands; 60 percent of the overthrust belt is off limits in the Rocky Mountain area, which is Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. They estimate there is 137 trillion cubic feet of gas out there. And as a consequence, but they have put 60 percent of the area off limits. Let's look at one more thing. If we look at our reliance on natural gas and oil, we recognize that we are not going to change over the next 20 or 25 years, as much as we would like to have greater dependence on alternative energy sources. The realization is the technology is not there. We have to continue to encourage them. The real answer is long- term and short-term relief. There is some short-term potential relief in repealing the Clinton-Gore gas tax hike. With prices at the pump steadily rising, one thing we can do is suspend the 4.3 cent-per-gallon Clinton-Gore gas tax. That came in 1993. The Democratic Congress, without a single Republican vote, adopted the Clinton-Gore gas tax as part of one of the largest tax increases in history. That tax has cost the American motorist $43 billion over the last 6 years. We can suspend this tax until the end of the year when prices may be stabilized, and we can make sure the highway trust fund is reimbursed for any lost revenue so we can ensure all highway construction authorized will be constructed. It is interesting to note that when Clinton-Gore passed this tax, it 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. Long-term fixes: We need to stimulate the domestic oil and gas industry. We need to get in the overthrust belt. We need the Department of Interior to open up these areas, and we need a long-term fix. It involves legislation that I am introducing to authorize the opening of the Coastal Plain. I will show my colleagues what I am talking about. This is an area that lies in the northeast corner of Alaska, north of the Arctic Circle, 1,300 miles south of the North Pole. The pipeline of Prudhoe Bay over the last 30 years has produced 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country. I will show another chart because we have to put this area in perspective, otherwise you lose it. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge consists of 19 million acres in its entirety. We have set aside in wilderness permanently 8 million acres. We set another 9.5 million acres in refuge, permanently--no drilling, nothing in those two areas. But Congress set aside what they call the 1002 area, the Coastal Plain, for a determination of whether or not to open it for competitive oil and gas bids. The Eskimo people of Kaktovik, a little village there, support exploration in this area. The geologists say it is the most likely area for a significant find. We propose a competitive lease sale. We propose only exploration in the wintertime, that way we will make no footprint on the ground. There is roughly 1.5 million acres on the Coastal Plain. The industry says if they are allowed to develop it with the technology they have, they will use less than 2,000 acres in the entirety of the 1.5 million acres. That is the kind of footprint the technology gives us. As we look at national energy security, we have to look at some long- term solutions because Prudhoe Bay, as can be seen on this chart, shows a good degree of compatibility with abundant wildlife. This shows Prudhoe Bay field and the caribou wandering around. This is the pipeline that goes 800 miles to Valdez. If the oil is where we think it is, we simply extend the pipeline over to Prudhoe Bay and produce it. This chart shows what frequently happens on the pipeline. Here are some bears going for a little walk on the pipeline enjoying the afternoon. They get away from bugs and flies, and it is easier walking on the pipeline than it is in the heavy snow. They know what they are doing. I conclude by recognizing in October our Vice President made a statement that he is going to do everything in his power to make sure there is no new drilling off our coastal areas relative to OCS lease sales. I think that statement is going to come back and haunt the administration and certainly haunt the Vice President because if we do not go for OCS activities, we are not going to go anywhere. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Sierra Club soliciting visitations to Washington to lobby Members of Congress be printed in the Record. The Sierra Club pays for all the meals, all the transportation, and all the lodging for these recruits it is simply reflective of the other point of view and that they are attempting to influence us on this issue. It is a good issue for revenue, for their membership. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the proposed lease sale by the Gwich'in people of Venetie for their lands on the North Slope that they hold, which is about 1.8 million acres. It is necessary that you understand the opposition. This will give you a point of view that, indeed, the opposition was prepared to lease their land. The only unfortunate problem was, there was no oil on it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I encourage my colleagues to look at this legislation and recognize that we have to decrease our dependence on imported oil. The best way to do that is to stimulate domestic production here at home. The Coastal Plain of ANWR is one way to do it. I thank the Chair and wish everybody a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 2214 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment Senator Collins for her introduction of the St. Croix heritage bill. I look forward to receiving that in my Energy Committee, and I will attempt to take it up at an early opportunity for a hearing and report it out. I want to commend her and her colleague from Maine, as well.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will ease the financial hardships that fisherman endure because of the uncertainties of their industry. I am very pleased that Senator Stevens has joined me in co-sponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, in 1986 when Congress rewrote the tax law and cut the number of tax brackets from 11 to two, one of the provisions of prior law that was repealed was income averaging. The purpose of income averaging was to ameliorate the tax burden on individuals whose incomes varied from year to year. It ensured that an individual whose income increased significantly in one year and then dropped significantly in the next year could average the tax brackets for the two years. With only two brackets, many believed that income averaging was no longer needed. However, in the 14 years since the 1986 tax reform, we have added three additional brackets to the tax code. And with five brackets there is a clear need for income averaging, especially for individuals who are in occupations where the predictability of income is uncertain. In 1997, we adopted income averaging for farmers because we recognized that weather conditions can significantly impact what a farming family earns in any particular year. In this legislation we are introducing today, we are adding fishermen to the category eligible for income averaging. Just as farmers cannot predict the weather, fisherman are unable to predict how large or small their catch will be. Let me give you an example of how the fishermen in Bristol Bay in my home state of Alaska have fared in recent years. Between 1995 and 1998, the fish run dropped from 244 million to barely 58 million last year. At the same time their income has dropped from $188 million to $69 million. Quite frankly, income averaging is fair for farmers and is equally justified for fishermen. In addition, our legislation establishes risk management savings accounts which fishermen will be able to draw down when fishing runs are low. Under this proposal, fishermen could set aside up to 20 percent of their income in special savings accounts. Interest earned in the account would be taxable, but withdrawals would only be taxable in the year of the withdrawal. Mr. President, a recent fishery failure in Alaska resulted in the federal government allocate $50 million to assist the fishermen and their local communities. With these special risk management accounts, fishermen will be less dependent on federal assistance and will be able to more easily survive fishing downturns. Mr. President, it is my hope that when we consider a tax bill later this year, these modest proposals will be included in that bill. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, soon we are going to be debating judicial nominations in this body. I want to take this opportunity to address what I consider a grave problem affecting the administration of justice in our Nation. I am referring to the unwieldy Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Some will prefer the status quo, and I hope after my presentation this morning they will share in the recognition that the Ninth Circuit demands reform. The Ninth Circuit has grown so large and has drifted so far from prudent legal reasoning, that sweeping change is in order. Congress has already recognized that change is needed. In 1997, we commissioned a report on structural alternatives for the Federal courts of appeals. The Commission, chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Byron White, found numerous faults within the Ninth Circuit. In its conclusion, the Commission recommended major reforms and a drastic reorganization of the Circuit. For this reason, I, along with my distinguished colleague from Washington, Senator Slade Gorton, introduced S. 253, the Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999, which would in effectuate the recommendations of the White commission. The bill would reorganize the Ninth Circuit into three regional divisions, designed as the northern, middle, and southern divisions, and a nonregional circuit division. Ideally, a more cohesive judicial body would emerge--one that reflects the community it serves, and holds a greater master of applicable, but unique, state law and state issues. Some in this body were not too happy with the divisional realignment. Perhaps a more direct and simplified solution to the problems of the Ninth Circuit is in order. For this reason, I, along with my colleague, Senator Hatch of Utah, introduced a new bill this morning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2000. We are joined by Senator Craig, Senator Crapo, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Smith of Oregon. This bill will divide the Ninth Circuit into two independent circuits. The new Ninth Circuit would contain Arizona, California, and Nevada. A new Twelfth Circuit would be composed of Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Immediately upon enactment, the concerns of the White Commission will be addressed, and a more cohesive, efficient, and predictable judiciary will emerge. In this debate, let us not forget why change is in order. The Ninth Circuit extends from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border. It spans the tropics of Hawaii and across the International Dateline to Guam and the Mariana Islands. Encompassing some 14 million square miles, the Ninth Circuit, by any means of measure, is the largest of all our U.S. courts of appeal. It is larger than the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits combined. Let me refer to chart one because I think it makes the point that the Ninth Circuit serves a population of more than 50 million, almost 60 percent more than are served by the next largest circuit court. By the year 2010, the Census Bureau estimates the Ninth Circuit population will be more than 63 million. Mind you, it is now 50 million--63 million. That is an increase of 26 percent in just 10 years. I wonder how many people this court has to serve before Congress will realize the court is simply overwhelmed by its population. That is a fact. I must confess our efforts in this case are not novel. Calls to split the Ninth Circuit Court have been heard since 1891. More to the point, Congress has attempted to reorganize the Ninth Circuit since World War II! Congressional Members are not alone in advocating a split. In 1973, the Congressional Commission on the Revision of the Federal Court of Appellate System recommended that Congress split the Ninth Circuit. That was 1973. Unfortunately, Congress never effectuated the recommendations. Over the years, many legislative efforts have been made to correct the Ninth Circuit problems. Still, no solution. Now, in a new millennium, the problems of the Ninth Circuit still exist and have even grown worse. Mr. President, justice bears the price for Congress' inaction. The time for action is long overdue. Because of the circuit's massive size, there is a natural decrease in the ability of the judges to keep abreast of legal developments within the Ninth Circuit. I encourage my colleagues to contact some of those judges--they will be the first to admit they cannot follow the number of cases pending before the court. It simply is too great a load. Inconsistent decisions and improper constitutional interpretations are not unusual. Let's look at the next chart. In the 1996-1997 session alone, an astounding 95 percent of the cases reviewed by the Supreme Court were overturned. This number should raise more than a few eyebrows. That is from 1996 and 1997. Again, 95 percent of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court were overturned. Looking at chart 2, over the past 3 years, 33 percent of all cases reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court arose from this troubled Ninth Circuit. That is three times the number of reversals for the next nearest circuit court, and 33 times higher than the reversal rate for the Tenth Circuit. There you have it. Compare the courts, caseloads, and the question of promptness in justice. What are these reversal cases? These are people who had their cases wrongly decided. They are people who had to incur great expense, wait unnecessary lengths of time, and risk adverse legal rulings in order to receive justice. No American should have to receive substandard legal attention based, solely on what State they live in. But we cannot fault the judges of the Ninth Circuit alone. We, in Congress, have allowed this circuit to grow to staggering proportions. In 1998, there were over 9,450 cases filed. It is this number that makes adjudication of claims unacceptably slow. Consequently justice suffers. Mr. President, we should listen to the voices of the judges who attempt to serve this region. Ninth Circuit Judge Diramuid O'Scannlain described the problem as follows: An appellate court must function as a unified body, and it must speak with a unified voice. It must maintain and shape a coherent body of law. . . . As the number of opinions increase, we judges risk losing the ability to keep track of precedent and the ability to know what our circuit's law is. ``The ability to know what our circuit's law is''--that is part of the problem. These judges acknowledge they don't know, and they cannot possibly know, because the caseload is too great. He said: In short, bigger is not necessarily better. He further stated: We [the Ninth Circuit] cannot grow without limit. . . . As the number of opinions increase, we judges risk losing the ability to know what our circuit's law is. That is the key. It has grown so fast, they don't know what the circuit law is. In short, bigger is not necessarily better. The Ninth Circuit will ultimately need to be split. . . . Judge O'Scannlain is not alone. The very Supreme Court Justices we entrust to guide our Nation's jurisprudence have acknowledged and recommended reform for this troubled court. Justice Kennedy continued that: 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 is necessary for an effective circuit. Judge Stevens notes: Arguments in favor of dividing the Circuit in either two or three smaller circuits overwhelmingly outweigh the single serious objection to such a change. But now, with this new bill we can fix the problem. And in turn, we can ensure that all Americans receive swift and fair adjudication of their claims. While I may believe even more sweeping changes are in order, I strongly urge this body address this crisis in our judiciary system. Mr. President, it is the 50 million residents of the Ninth Circuit who suffer from our inaction. These Americans wait years before their cases are heard. And after these unreasonable delays, justice may not even be served in an overstretched and out-of-touch judiciary. Mr. President, Congress has known about the problem in the Ninth Circuit for a long time. Justice has been delayed too long. The time for reform has come, and I urge action on this bill. I yield to my friend who has been recognized. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce a bill, which I send to the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, soon we are going to be debating judicial nominations in this body. I want to take this opportunity to address what I consider a grave problem affecting the administration of justice in our Nation. I am referring to the unwieldy Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Some will prefer the status quo, and I hope after my presentation this morning they will share in the recognition that the Ninth Circuit demands reform. The Ninth Circuit has grown so large and has drifted so far from prudent legal reasoning, that sweeping change is in order. Congress has already recognized that change is needed. In 1997, we commissioned a report on structural alternatives for the Federal courts of appeals. The Commission, chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Byron White, found numerous faults within the Ninth Circuit. In its conclusion, the Commission recommended major reforms and a drastic reorganization of the Circuit. For this reason, I, along with my distinguished colleague from Washington, Senator Slade Gorton, introduced S. 253, the Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999, which would in effectuate the recommendations of the White commission. The bill would reorganize the Ninth Circuit into three regional divisions, designed as the northern, middle, and southern divisions, and a nonregional circuit division. Ideally, a more cohesive judicial body would emerge--one that reflects the community it serves, and holds a greater master of applicable, but unique, state law and state issues. Some in this body were not too happy with the divisional realignment. Perhaps a more direct and simplified solution to the problems of the Ninth Circuit is in order. For this reason, I, along with my colleague, Senator Hatch of Utah, introduced a new bill this morning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2000. We are joined by Senator Craig, Senator Crapo, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Smith of Oregon. This bill will divide the Ninth Circuit into two independent circuits. The new Ninth Circuit would contain Arizona, California, and Nevada. A new Twelfth Circuit would be composed of Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Immediately upon enactment, the concerns of the White Commission will be addressed, and a more cohesive, efficient, and predictable judiciary will emerge. In this debate, let us not forget why change is in order. The Ninth Circuit extends from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border. It spans the tropics of Hawaii and across the International Dateline to Guam and the Mariana Islands. Encompassing some 14 million square miles, the Ninth Circuit, by any means of measure, is the largest of all our U.S. courts of appeal. It is larger than the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits combined. Let me refer to chart one because I think it makes the point that the Ninth Circuit serves a population of more than 50 million, almost 60 percent more than are served by the next largest circuit court. By the year 2010, the Census Bureau estimates the Ninth Circuit population will be more than 63 million. Mind you, it is now 50 million--63 million. That is an increase of 26 percent in just 10 years. I wonder how many people this court has to serve before Congress will realize the court is simply overwhelmed by its population. That is a fact. I must confess our efforts in this case are not novel. Calls to split the Ninth Circuit Court have been heard since 1891. More to the point, Congress has attempted to reorganize the Ninth Circuit since World War II! Congressional Members are not alone in advocating a split. In 1973, the Congressional Commission on the Revision of the Federal Court of Appellate System recommended that Congress split the Ninth Circuit. That was 1973. Unfortunately, Congress never effectuated the recommendations. Over the years, many legislative efforts have been made to correct the Ninth Circuit problems. Still, no solution. Now, in a new millennium, the problems of the Ninth Circuit still exist and have even grown worse. Mr. President, justice bears the price for Congress' inaction. The time for action is long overdue. Because of the circuit's massive size, there is a natural decrease in the ability of the judges to keep abreast of legal developments within the Ninth Circuit. I encourage my colleagues to contact some of those judges--they will be the first to admit they cannot follow the number of cases pending before the court. It simply is too great a load. Inconsistent decisions and improper constitutional interpretations are not unusual. Let's look at the next chart. In the 1996-1997 session alone, an astounding 95 percent of the cases reviewed by the Supreme Court were overturned. This number should raise more than a few eyebrows. That is from 1996 and 1997. Again, 95 percent of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court were overturned. Looking at chart 2, over the past 3 years, 33 percent of all cases reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court arose from this troubled Ninth Circuit. That is three times the number of reversals for the next nearest circuit court, and 33 times higher than the reversal rate for the Tenth Circuit. There you have it. Compare the courts, caseloads, and the question of promptness in justice. What are these reversal cases? These are people who had their cases wrongly decided. They are people who had to incur great expense, wait unnecessary lengths of time, and risk adverse legal rulings in order to receive justice. No American should have to receive substandard legal attention based, solely on what State they live in. But we cannot fault the judges of the Ninth Circuit alone. We, in Congress, have allowed this circuit to grow to staggering proportions. In 1998, there were over 9,450 cases filed. It is this number that makes adjudication of claims unacceptably slow. Consequently justice suffers. Mr. President, we should listen to the voices of the judges who attempt to serve this region. Ninth Circuit Judge Diramuid O'Scannlain described the problem as follows: An appellate court must function as a unified body, and it must speak with a unified voice. It must maintain and shape a coherent body of law. . . . As the number of opinions increase, we judges risk losing the ability to keep track of precedent and the ability to know what our circuit's law is. ``The ability to know what our circuit's law is''--that is part of the problem. These judges acknowledge they don't know, and they cannot possibly know, because the caseload is too great. He said: In short, bigger is not necessarily better. He further stated: We [the Ninth Circuit] cannot grow without limit. . . . As the number of opinions increase, we judges risk losing the ability to know what our circuit's law is. That is the key. It has grown so fast, they don't know what the circuit law is. In short, bigger is not necessarily better. The Ninth Circuit will ultimately need to be split. . . . Judge O'Scannlain is not alone. The very Supreme Court Justices we entrust to guide our Nation's jurisprudence have acknowledged and recommended reform for this troubled court. Justice Kennedy continued that: 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 is necessary for an effective circuit. Judge Stevens notes: Arguments in favor of dividing the Circuit in either two or three smaller circuits overwhelmingly outweigh the single serious objection to such a change. But now, with this new bill we can fix the problem. And in turn, we can ensure that all Americans receive swift and fair adjudication of their claims. While I may believe even more sweeping changes are in order, I strongly urge this body address this crisis in our judiciary system. Mr. President, it is the 50 million residents of the Ninth Circuit who suffer from our inaction. These Americans wait years before their cases are heard. And after these unreasonable delays, justice may not even be served in an overstretched and out-of-touch judiciary. Mr. President, Congress has known about the problem in the Ninth Circuit for a long time. Justice has been delayed too long. The time for reform has come, and I urge action on this bill. I yield to my friend who has been recognized. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I compliment Senator Collins for her introduction of the St. Croix heritage bill. I look forward to receiving that in my Energy Committee, and I will attempt to take it up at an early opportunity for a hearing and report it out. I want to commend her and her colleague from Maine, as well.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will ease the financial hardships that fisherman endure because of the uncertainties of their industry. I am very pleased that Senator Stevens has joined me in co-sponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, in 1986 when Congress rewrote the tax law and cut the number of tax brackets from 11 to two, one of the provisions of prior law that was repealed was income averaging. The purpose of income averaging was to ameliorate the tax burden on individuals whose incomes varied from year to year. It ensured that an individual whose income increased significantly in one year and then dropped significantly in the next year could average the tax brackets for the two years. With only two brackets, many believed that income averaging was no longer needed. However, in the 14 years since the 1986 tax reform, we have added three additional brackets to the tax code. And with five brackets there is a clear need for income averaging, especially for individuals who are in occupations where the predictability of income is uncertain. In 1997, we adopted income averaging for farmers because we recognized that weather conditions can significantly impact what a farming family earns in any particular year. In this legislation we are introducing today, we are adding fishermen to the category eligible for income averaging. Just as farmers cannot predict the weather, fisherman are unable to predict how large or small their catch will be. Let me give you an example of how the fishermen in Bristol Bay in my home state of Alaska have fared in recent years. Between 1995 and 1998, the fish run dropped from 244 million to barely 58 million last year. At the same time their income has dropped from $188 million to $69 million. Quite frankly, income averaging is fair for farmers and is equally justified for fishermen. In addition, our legislation establishes risk management savings accounts which fishermen will be able to draw down when fishing runs are low. Under this proposal, fishermen could set aside up to 20 percent of their income in special savings accounts. Interest earned in the account would be taxable, but withdrawals would only be taxable in the year of the withdrawal. Mr. President, a recent fishery failure in Alaska resulted in the federal government allocate $50 million to assist the fishermen and their local communities. With these special risk management accounts, fishermen will be less dependent on federal assistance and will be able to more easily survive fishing downturns. Mr. President, it is my hope that when we consider a tax bill later this year, these modest proposals will be included in that bill. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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, Friday, the price of oil exceeded $30. It was close to $31.26. That is high--not necessarily an all-time high, but it is pretty close. Back in 1973, when we had the Arab oil embargo, the prices were in that neighborhood. A lot of people don't remember 1973, or the consequences of the Arab oil embargo; but for those who do, it was a day of reckoning. It was at a time when you went to the gas station to fill up and you waited--not just a little while, but in some cases a couple of hours. You stood in line because gasoline was short in this country. There was an indignant response from the American public that never again would we be so dependent on imported oil from other countries. As a consequence, at that time, we formed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The important thing to note is that in 1973 we were about 37 percent dependent on imported oil. The idea of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was to have a supply of oil on hand in case there was an interruption on our imports and we could have that oil available for use to meet that emergency. That was in 1973. Today, in the year 2000, we are approximately 56 percent dependent on imported oil. The Department of Energy has indicated by the year 2015 to 2020, we will probably be dependent to the tune of about 65 percent. Now, the question, of course, from the standpoint of our national energy security interests, is: What are the implications of this? What are the ramifications of our increasing dependence on imported oil? Clearly, the pricing structure is determined by the availability of oil from the producing countries that have an excess capacity. That is primarily in the Mideast. We have seen the efforts by both Iran and Iraq to cut production. It is interesting that between those two countries, they account for about 8 percent of the world's 75 million barrels of daily oil production. But now we see Baghdad and Teheran in a new position of power and influence to push their separate agendas in various ways. We have OPEC. We know the significance of what that cartel controls. They decided to have a meeting to address our emergency. The irony of that is, that meeting is going to take place on March 27, which is hardly responding to our emergency. As a matter of fact, our Secretary of Energy traveled extensively through the Mideast, meeting with the OPEC ministers, encouraging them to produce more oil so we will not see the price escalation that is currently occurring. The results of that meeting were that we could expect some relief from Venezuela and Mexico. Both countries, of course, are outside of OPEC, but they wanted to remind us of something, and they communicated a little message. This didn't come from the Secretary of Energy, but it came from those who have had an opportunity to relate to both Mexico and Venezuela with regard to oil prices. On the manner in which we came and pled for more production, the Mexicans and the Venezuelans said: Where were you when we were going broke selling our oil at $11 and $12? Were you giving us any assistance? Were you encouraging higher prices so we could maintain our economy? Certainly not. That was not the case at all. Now when we see oil at $30, we go to Mexico and we go to Venezuela, and say: We need increased production. But they are reminding us that we weren't at all concerned when the price was low, and when their economy was in collapse, they couldn't count on the United States. Those are the dangers of that kind of dependence. Now we are seeing OPEC on March 27 perhaps responding to increased oil production. But it is a little more complex than that because there are wheels within wheels in OPEC and relationships within relationships. Kuwait this weekend signaled its support for an agreement to boost production. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that we fought a war against Saddam Hussein. It was a war over oil to keep that country, Kuwait, from being taken over by Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We are now seeing within Iran and Iraq a group of price hawks, if you will, within OPEC. They are going to do what is best for their country--not what is best for the United States. Teheran has said that this is not the time to increase output because demand typically declines and higher production could lead to a quick collapse of prices. They are certainly looking out for their own best interests. Iran, with 3.5 million barrels of daily production, is at about its maximum, analysts say. Since we are talking about bedfellows, let's talk about Algeria and Libya. They also have little reason in the short term to care about the world's economy, or the United States economy specifically. An interesting suggestion is in this report from the Wall Street Journal. If the United States wants to lower its price of gasoline, it should reduce its taxes. That is their answer. They simply want to reduce our highway taxes and our other taxes and our State taxes that are associated with the price of oil. They say that if we really care about higher prices, we should simply eliminate our taxes. That is an interesting point of view. Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer of oil and an OPEC shareholder, has a special interest in keeping Iran happy now because relations between those countries are at their best since the Iranian revolution in 1979. We see countries within OPEC working for their own best interests and not necessarily what is good for the United States. The Saudis have been more responsive in the past, but not necessarily at this time because of their relationship with Iran. OPEC producers want to continue the cartel's new-found unity because it funds the cash-flow. Wouldn't you rather produce more oil at a higher price to meet your cash-flow than a lot of oil at lower prices? That is just what they are doing. We are seeing the role of OPEC and our neighbors in Mexico, Venezuela, and other countries evaluating the kind of response they are going to make to the United States at this time of emergency. Over the last decade--most of it under the Clinton administration-- production has decreased 17 percent and consumption has increased 14 percent. That is the reality of what has occurred in this country because we have not had an energy policy. We do not have an energy policy on coal. We do not have an energy policy on natural gas. We just saw the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission basically kill prospects for a gas line in the Northeast corridor by making it economically unattractive for investors. We have an administration that suggests hydro is nonrenewable. It wants to take dams down in the Pacific Northwest. So we look at oil, we look at gas, we look at hydro, and we look at coal; there is no energy policy of any consequence. Renewables are something we all support. But the reality is they contribute less than 4 percent of the total energy consumed in this country, and the prospects, while encouraging, are not going to give us the immediate relief we need. As a consequence, we are experiencing a shock. The American public, when it drives down to the gas station to fill up the family Blazer or sports vehicle, may find itself subjected to a situation where it makes a pretty good hole in a $100 bill if it takes a 40-gallon gas tank at $2 a gallon, or thereabouts. We also have a couple of other considerations. We have the potential for added inflation. Somebody made the interesting observation that if you consider the cost and availability of labor, if you consider the cost of money--namely, interest rates that have been going up--and the cost of energy, you have the three factors for inflation. It has been estimated that for every $10 increase in the price of oil, inflation increases one-half percent. It is a very real threat to our economy, a very real exposure to our consumers out there, and I don't think we realize what is ahead. Not too many people know that every time they get in the airplane now, they are paying a $20 surcharge on that airline ticket, whether they go from here to Seattle or from here to Baltimore. The Northeast corridor has felt the impact of $2 a gallon for heating oil. The question is, Is it going to get worse? The answer is, probably. When can we get relief? The question is whether we want to just depend on the Mideast or whether we want to reduce our dependence on imported oil. There are many areas of this country over the overthrust belt of the Rocky Mountains--Utah, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Wyoming, and my State of Alaska--where we have a tremendous abundance of oil and gas if given the opportunity to initiate exploration. This is not supported by President Clinton. I am glad to say it is supported by some of the Republican candidates running for President. The point is, what are we going to learn from history? Some say not much. If the Department of Energy predicts we will be 65-percent dependent in the years 2015 to 2020, should we not be doing something about it now? We should be committed to a policy of reducing our dependence on imported energy sources by developing sources in the United States. My State of Alaska, in the ANWR area, has an estimated 16 billion barrels. That would be an amount equal to what Saudi Arabia exports to America over an estimated 30-year timeframe. We have areas in Louisiana, in Texas, and other coastal States that want to have OCS activity, yet we have an administration that does not support that activity. That is, indeed, unfortunate. The bottom line is, when are we going to wake up? When will we relieve our dependency on imported oil? I might add, for those who think imported oil is the answer from an environmental point of view, it is estimated that from the year 2015 to 2020, it will take more than 30 tankers, 500,000 barrels each, docking every day in the United States, to supply that increase; that would be 10,000 ships per year. If that is not an environmental risk, I suggest anyone check the registration of the ships because they will be foreign ships. Finally, in 1990 we had 657 rigs working in this country; today we have 153. In 1990, we had 405,000 jobs in the oil industry; today we have 293,000, a 28-percent decline. If one considers the makeup of our trade deficit, a trade deficit of $300 billion, $100 billion is the cost of imported oil. I encourage my colleagues to recognize that it is time to move. It is time to address opportunities to relieve our dependence on imported oil with meaningful proposals on the basic premise that charity begins at home. I ask unanimous consent an article from the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 2000 with my colleague and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Bingaman. For over 40 years the Price-Anderson Act has provided a comprehensive system of liability coverage for nuclear incidents and has been extended three times since 1957, most recently in 1988. The act's authority to extend new coverage will expire on August 1, 2002, and I believe that it is important that we extend the authorities well in advance of that date. When we reauthorized the law in 1988, we asked both the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review the Act and submit reports assessing its value and the need for further extension as well as making recommendations for any necessary changes. Both agencies recommended that the Act be extended with only minor changes. This legislation makes those relatively minor modifications and extends the authorization for an additional ten years. Mr. President, the Price-Anderson Act is an important aspect of the development of nuclear energy in the United States. If we are going to meet any of the emission goals set forth for our domestic electricity production, then nuclear power necessarily must remain a vital component of any energy policy. The Price-Anderson Act is essential to allow contractors and suppliers to prudently take the financial risks associated with nuclear activities for the Department of Energy as well as those undertaken by commercial nuclear facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Price-Anderson Act provides important protections to the public in the unlikely case of a nuclear incident. This legislation will extend those protections as well as making other necessary amendments to the Act. I fully support this legislation and I hope that we can have it enacted expeditiously.