Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Wednesday, March 8, 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 examine energy supply and demand issues relating to crude oil, heating oil, and transportation fuels in light of the rise in price of these fuels. Those who wish to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by Committee invitation only. For further information, please contact Jo Meuse or Brian Malnak at (202) 224-6730. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague, the Chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, for addressing this matter and clarifying our understanding that this legislation does not alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I would also like to note that the authorization of appropriations contained in section 3 of S. 935 clarifies that money may be appropriated for the biomass research and development activities described in the bill pursuant to the existing general authority of the Secretary of Energy to fund biomass research and development, and does not create a new specific level of authorization for this program.

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 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the President's proposed FY 2001 budget for the U.S. Forest Service. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 29, 2000, beginning at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Those who wish to submit written statements, should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey, Professional Staff Member, at (202) 224-2878.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an electric deregulation bill, which it is my sincere hope will reduce the burdens on our electric ratepayers and consumers throughout this country by promoting competition and reliability in the electric power industry. First, let me say competition isn't the goal of the legislation. Instead, competition is the means to achieve the goal of assuring customers reliable and reasonably-priced electricity. We have seen the benefits of competition in other industries such as natural gas, telecommunications, trucking, and even in the airlines. In each case, competition reduced prices. That was the objective--to enhance supply and to encourage innovation. There is every reason to expect that competition in the electric industry will benefit consumers. The Department of Energy agrees. It is projecting consumer savings in the area of $20 billion per year. That is not hay. That would be a significant savings to the consumers in this country, particularly important at a time when we are seeing spiking rates in oil, high gasoline prices, high heating oil prices, and high diesel fuel prices, as noted by the trucking industry that recently demonstrated here in Washington, DC. Heating oil prices are spiraling in the Northeast corridor. We are talking about, through electric deregulation, trying to bring about consumer savings of $20 billion per year or more. Progress has already been made in this area, both in retail competition and wholesale competition because there has been innovation. Twenty-four States have already adopted retail competition. That covers nearly 60 percent of our consumers. All other States are now giving it consideration. As a consequence of the innovation of the States, we are now seeing retail competition becoming a reality. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has created wholesale competition in the interstate market through Order 888. The legislative task we face--I, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and my colleagues on that committee, both the minority and the majority--will be significant. We look forward to the task ahead. It will call for the examination of this bill, as a comprehensive bill, to try to address the various concerns, as well as take up the other bills. However, I recognize there will be certain areas on which we will not be able to reach agreement. We can set them aside and proceed on what we can agree on, then go back one more time and look at those items we are still hung up on to see if we can generate any consensus. At that point, we can see what we have. Hopefully, it will be still meaningful. As I said, the legislative task before the Senate is building on the progress that has been made with the States, not halting State progress on retail competition, and not interfering with the FERC process on wholesale competition. The question is: How do we get there from here? How do we move the electric power industry from regulation to competition? Some argue we should preempt the States; I don't think so. Some say that we should substitute FERC regulation for State regulation; I don't think so. Others have the theory that one size fits all; I don't think so. I think the States and the innovative attitudes coming out of the States indicate that one size does not fit all. We do not want to simply substitute one regulation for another. That is not deregulation. If that is done, it is just ``different'' regulation. Moreover, what may work in one State undoubtedly won't work in another State and the consumers would be harmed. To me, the answer is obvious. For consumers to enjoy the benefits of competition, we have to let the free market system work. We have seen that time and time again. We must stop having regulators pick the winners and losers, regulators making decisions that should be made in the marketplace. I have long said the best way to move toward market competition is to deregulate in those areas we can, streamline what we cannot deregulate, and facilitate States moving forward on retail competition. I would prefer deregulating the entire electric power industry. However, I recognize some regulation must remain because it is necessary to protect consumers. Traditionally, States have regulated retail matters directly affecting consumers and FERC has regulated matters in interstate commerce. The legislation I introduce today retains this traditional division of authority between the States and FERC. I believe that where regulation is necessary, it should be pursued by the unit of government that is closest to the consumer. The government that is closest to the citizen, is the government that will be the most responsive to citizens. Citizens go down to city hall; citizens will go down to the legislative body. That is where citizens are closest to their government, and those are the people to whom taxpayers can reach out and hold responsible--or wring their neck if necessary. I believe that FERC should only regulate that which cannot be regulated by States because it is in interstate commerce. I repeat that: In my opinion, as represented in this bill, FERC should regulate only that which cannot be regulated by States because it is in interstate commerce. I will highlight the important provisions of the legislation I have introduced today. One key element is the creation of a clear division of responsibility between the States and the Federal Government. States are responsible for retail matters affecting consumers in their State, including retail competition, and FERC is responsible for interstate matters, including wholesale competition. By creating this jurisdictional ``bright line,'' so to speak, I think we will clear up the current confusion in the jurisdiction that has resulted in litigation which is slowing down progress on competition. In the future, if there is a problem, we will know whom to hold responsible. Oftentimes in this business, accountability is pretty hard to find. We have designed this so we will be able to hold those responsible for their actions, and they will not be able to hide under a rock. This legislation also includes provisions that will protect electric reliability which is so important to consumers in our economy. I am pleased to say Senator Landrieu is joining me in this bipartisan legislation. The Senator from Louisiana has been very diligent in our Energy Committee. The legislation protects electric reliability in two ways: First, it creates a comprehensive, reliability organization that has clear enforcement authority. This will help in the short term. Second, by promoting competition, it ensures reliability over the long run, because the market will respond to consumer needs. The legislation also includes provisions to ensure that States and State public utility commissions will continue to be fully able to protect consumers. The legislation has provisions which will provide access to all interstate transmission lines, not just those covered by investor-owned utilities. Removing gaps in transmission access will promote competition in the wholesale power market. The legislation also addresses a number of other important issues including PURPA repeal, PUHCA repeal, assuring funding for nuclear power plant decommissioning, and authority to construct new transmission lines. There are other important issues that need to be addressed during the legislative process. For example, we need to look at ways to streamline and speed up the merger review process. Utilities are rightfully distressed that FERC's process is far too cumbersome, takes far too long to complete, and as a consequence is far too expensive. And these costs are just passed on to consumers. FERC is retained to do their analysis and make their decisions in a timely manner. These drawn out decisions, for all practical purposes, are simply allowing full employment for far too many lawyers. We also need to consider the creation of a universal service fund, similar to that which Congress included in the telecommunications legislation. This would help areas of the United States which do not yet have access to reliable and affordable electricity. Yes, there are regions in the United States where electricity is not taken for granted. My State of Alaska is one. There is a related tax issue which must also be addressed in the context of comprehensive legislation. That is the tax-exempt municipal bond issue, creating a level competitive playing field between investor-owned utilities and municipally-owned utilities. Because this is important to both municipally-owned and investor- owned utilities, I will talk about the problem for a moment. First, under the U.S. Tax Code, municipally-owned utilities can issue tax- exempt bonds to build new generation, transmission, and distribution facilities, but investor-owned utilities cannot issue tax-exempt bonds for these purposes. This gives municipally-owned utilities a taxpayer- provided competitive advantage to the extent they are able to use the facilities built with tax-exempt bonds to compete against private power which cannot use tax-exempt bonds. On the flip side, under the Tax Code, municipal tax-exempt bonds are subject to a private-use limitation. This means that if municipal utilities go too far in competing against private utilities, if they exceed their ``private use'' limitation allowed by the IRS, their bonds are subject to retroactive taxation. This limits the ability of municipal utilities to compete in the market. I assume we will hear from them on that. There has to be some equity in this process. The bottom line? We have a Tax Code that is not consistent with today's competitive environment. Both municipal utilities and private utilities are at risk. The issue must be addressed. It is not necessarily part of the legislation I am introducing today because the Tax Code issue is before the Finance Committee. I admit I am a member of that committee. Both the administration and Senator Gorton have legislative proposals pending before the Finance Committee. But I call, finally, upon industry--private power and public power-- to come and try to work out their differences on this and to bring Congress a compromise proposal that both sides can live with because it is something that simply has to be addressed. It is better to have the parties resolve it than have a dictate from the Congress. There are other issues of regional consideration that will need to be addressed as part of comprehensive legislation. We need to resolve the role of the Federal power marketing administrations in the marketplace, including the Bonneville Power Administration. We also need to address the role of one of the largest utilities in the United States, the TVA. I look forward to working with Senators from the Northwest--I see one on the floor--to address the Bonneville Power Administration issue, and the Senators from the South to address the Tennessee Valley Authority issue. I am convinced by promoting competition and protecting reliability this legislation will benefit the consumers, the economy, and our international competitors. I, again, thank Senator Landrieu of Louisiana for cosponsoring this legislation. To reiterate, I rise to introduce legislation to promote competition in the electric power industry. This legislation is bipartisan, it is cosponsored by Senator Landrieu. Let me first say that competition is not the goal of this legislation. Instead, competition is the means to achieve the goal of assuring consumers reliable and reasonably-priced electricity. We have seen great benefits from bringing competition to other industries such as natural gas, telecommunications, trucking and airlines. In each case, competition reduced prices, enhanced supply and encouraged innovation. There is every reason to expect that increased competition in the electric power industry will likewise benefit consumers. The Department of Energy agrees. It has projected consumer savings of $20 billion per year. Great progress has already been made in both retail competition and wholesale competition. To date, retail competition programs have been adopted by 24 States, which cover 60 percent of U.S. consumers. All of the remaining States are now considering what kind of retail program would best meet their local needs. Competition has been brought to the interstate wholesale market through the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and FERC's subsequent issuance of Orders No. 888 and 889. So the legislative task facing Congress is to build on this progress, not to halt State progress on retail competition or to interfere with FERC progress on wholesale competition. The question is: How do we get there from here? How do we move the electric power industry from regulation to competition? Should we preempt the States and substitute Federal regulation for State regulation, as some argue? Or should we instead deregulate to allow the market to operate? To me the answer is obvious: Competition must be market-based, not government-run. We must stop having regulators pick winners and losers, making decisions that ought to be made by the marketplace. Substituting one regulator for another--Federal for State--is not deregulation. It's just different regulation. Creating a one-size-fits-all Federal solution may work in some States, but it will not work in all States. For the market to work and for consumers to enjoy the benefits of competition, we need to free the market from undue government interference. I have long said that the best way to move toward market competition is to deregulate what we can, streamline what we cannot deregulate, and to facilitate States moving forward on retail competition. While I would like to deregulate the entire electric power industry, I recognize that some regulation will remain necessary to protect consumers. Where regulation is necessary, I believe that it should be performed by the unit of government closest to the consumer. However, where the matter to be regulated is in interstate commerce, FERC must be the regulatory agency. Traditionally, States have regulated retail matters directly affecting consumers, and the FERC has regulated wholesale sales and transmission in interstate commerce. The legislation I am today introducing retains this traditional division of authority between the States and the FERC. I will now outline the key provisions of the legislation. One key element of this legislation is the creation of a clear division of authority between the States and the Federal government. The legislation makes it clear that States are responsible for retail matters affecting consumers in their State, and the FERC is responsible for interstate matters. Thus, States will continue to be responsible for retail competition, and the FERC will continue to be responsible for wholesale competition. This clarification is necessary because when the Federal Power Act was created in 1935, Congress did not foresee the current market and industry structure. As a result, there are now ambiguities as to the split in jurisdiction between the States and the Federal government. This has resulted in uncertainty and increasing litigation. Creating a jurisdictional ``bright line'' will help both States and the FERC move forward with their efforts to promote competition in their respective jurisdictions. Moreover, by creating clear lines of accountability, if things don't work right we will know exactly where to point the finger. Another major aspect of this legislation is that it will protect the reliability of our electric power system. The legislation does so in two different ways. First it creates a grid-wide reliability organization that is given the enforcement authority necessary to assure reliability. The language in the legislation is the industry- supported North American Electric Reliability Council proposal, plus additional reliability provisions proposed by Western Governors, State public utility commissions and State energy officials. However, as much as this new organization will help ensure reliability, it is not the long-term solution. The real solution is to promote competition, and that can only be accomplished though comprehensive legislation such as this. This legislation also includes provisions to provide access to all interstate transmission lines, not just those owned by investor-owned utilities. Under the Federal Power Act, Federally-owned utilities, State-owned utilities, municipally-owned utilities and cooperatively- owned utilities are all exempt from FERC's nondiscriminatory open access transmission program. These exempt utilities do not have to provide access to the transmission grid which adversely affects competition in the interstate wholesale power market. This legislation corrects that problem. Another important aspect of this legislation is its confirmation that States are not prevented from protecting consumers on a variety of retail matters such as: distribution system reliability; safety; obligation to serve; universal service; assured service to low-income, rural and remote consumers; retail seller performance standards; and protection against unfair business practices. There are similar provisions which confirm that States are not prevented from imposing a public interest charge to fund State programs such as: ensuring universal electric service, particularly for consumers located in rural and remote areas; environmental programs, renewable energy conservation programs; providing recovery of industry transition costs; providing transition costs for electricity workers hurt by restructuring; and research and development on electric technologies. By including these provisions, my legislation will ensure that States and State public utility commissions are fully capable of protecting consumers and promoting the public interest. The legislation also contains a number of other important provisions including repeal of PURPA's mandatory purchase requirement, repeal of PUHCA and assuring funding for nuclear power plant decommissioning. One provision in this legislation that I expect to be controversial is eminent domain authority to construct new interstate transmission lines. The provisions of the bill make this construction authority available in situations where there is a regional transmission planning process that provides for full public input, and is reviewed and approved by the FERC; and the transmission project cannot otherwise be constructed either because the State does not have the necessary authority, or because the State has delayed action for more than one year; and the FERC, through a formal public process with all legal rights protected, finds that the new transmission line is in the public convenience and necessity. When authorizing this construction, the legislation gives the FERC full authority to impose any requirements that are necessary to protect the public interest. You might ask: Why include such a potentially controversial provision? There are three reasons. The first reason is supply. We must have transmission lines if we are going to get electricity to consumers and industry. It is a simple fact of physics that you can't move electricity without power lines. The second reason is market power. As you know, market power exists where there is more demand than an existing transmission line can handle--a bottleneck. There are two possible ways to address a bottleneck. The first is full regulation of the bottleneck transmission facility, with regulators picking the winners and losers. But that does not solve the problem, it just allocates the problem. The other is the free market approach. Let those who want to move their electric power to market build a new transmission line around the bottleneck--or at least have a credible threat to build if the owner of the bottleneck transmission line does not offer them a fair deal. The third reason is reliability. Based on events over that past several years, it is clear that we need to enhance our transmission system if we are going to meet consumer needs during peak periods of demand. For those who think eminent domain is a brand-new idea for energy facilities--it isn't. The Federal Power Act already gives Federal eminent domain for hydroelectric dams and their associated electric transmission lines. Similarly, the Natural Gas Act gives Federal eminent domain for interstate natural gas pipelines. If it works for interstate natural gas pipelines, it will work for interstate electric transmission lines. Turning now to regional transmission organizations, the legislation I am today introducing retains the RTO provisions that were in my draft bill. While Order No. 2000 has many good aspects--its voluntary nature, flexibility, open architecture and transmission incentives--it does have some serious deficiencies. I am especially concerned about two key issues. First, Order No. 2000 prohibits any active ownership of the RTO by a utility or market participant after a five year transition period. Oddly, this applies even to someone who only owns transmission. Clearly, this will discourage participation in RTOs by transmission owners. Second, by denying transmission owners the ability to design and file complete transmission rates with FERC, Order No. 2000 creates confusion at best, and at worst it may deny transmission owners their rights under law to recover all of their prudently incurred costs. If these and other deficiencies are not corrected, FERC Order No. 2000 may be litigated for years, creating great uncertainty in RTO formation. In light of the increasing concerns about grid reliability, delay in RTO formation would be particularly troublesome as Order No. 2000 makes RTOs directly responsible for short-term reliability. Let me mention some significant matters that need to be addressed during the legislative process. For example, there is the important issue of streamlining and speeding up the FERC merger review process. Utilities are rightfully distressed that FERC's process takes far too long and is much too cumbersome. We also need to consider the creation of a universal service fund-- similar to that which Congress included in the telecommunications legislation. This would help areas which do not have access to reliable and affordable electricity. And yes, there are regions of the United States where electricity is not taken for granted. Another controversial issue that we must deal with in the context of comprehensive legislation is the tax-exempt municipal bond issue, creating a level competitive playing field between investor-owned utilities and municipally-owned utilities. Under the U.S. Code municipally-owned utilities can issue tax-exempt bonds to build new generation, transmission and distribution facilities, but investor- owned utilities cannot issue tax-exempt bonds for these purposes. This gives municipally-owned utilities a taxpayer-provided competitive advantage to the extent they are able to use facilities built with tax- exempt bonds to compete against private power--who cannot use tax- exempt bonds in the same way. But on the flip-side--under the tax code municipal tax-exempt bonds are subject to a ``private use'' limitation. This means that if municipal utilities go too far in competing against private utilities--if they exceed their ``private use'' limitation allowed by the IRS regulation--then their bonds are subject to retroactive taxation. This limits the ability of municipal utilities to compete in the market. The bottom line? We have a tax code that is not consistent with today's competitive environment, putting both municipal utilities and private utilities at risk. Although this issue must be addressed, it is not a part of the legislation I am introducing because it is a tax code issue that is now before the finance committee. Both the Administration and Senator Gorton have legislative proposals pending before the finance committee. I call upon the industry--private power and public power--to work out their differences and to bring Congress a compromise proposal--that both sides can live with. There are also a number of other regional issues that will need to be addressed as a part of comprehensive legislation. For example, we need to resolve the role of the Federal power marketing administrations in he marketplace--including the Bonneville Power Administration. We also need to address the role of one of the largest utilities in the United States--the Tennessee Valley Authority. I am convinced that by promoting competition in the electric power industry and by addressing the reliability issue, this legislation will benefit consumers, our economy and our international competitiveness. Like the Secretary of Energy, I believe that it is now time to move forward with legislation. I hope that my colleagues agree.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I listened to my colleague from South Carolina outline the state of the budget. I concur with his pointed criticism of whether or not we have a sound surplus, or whether it is somewhat realistic. He points out the $19 billion that has been paid by the ratepayers into the nuclear waste fund, as an example. He and I both know that money has gone into the general fund. It is basically not in escrow. It is not in a reserve account. When the administration or the Government ever addresses that responsibility, we will have to appropriate that money someplace because it has been spent. As an old banker, I can tell you that interest is like a horse that eats while you sleep. It goes on Saturday night, Sunday morning, and Sunday night. As a consequence, we often find ourselves in the position where the interest exceeds the principal. When that happens, you are broke. I am certainly sympathetic to the points raised by my colleague. (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 2098 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar: Executive Calendar No. 280. I ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nomination appear at this point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Wednesday, February 23. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for the transaction of morning business until 11:30 a.m., with the first 45 minutes under the control of Senator Daschle, or his designee, and the next 45 minutes under the control of Senator Thomas, or his designee.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 6 is at 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. President, I understand that S. 2081, introduced earlier today by Senator Hatch, is at the desk, and I therefore 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, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will conduct a period for the transaction of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Following morning business, it is anticipated that the Senate could turn to any other Legislative or Executive Calendar items cleared for action, including the education savings account bill. Therefore, votes may be anticipated and Members are reminded that a vote will occur at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the plight of our independent truckers who are here in Washington, many of them, expressing their frustration as a consequence of the high increase in the cost of diesel oil. These are individuals who own their own trucks, for the most part, and supply this country with untold tons of food and various other supplies, virtually everything we need. This is a mobile society and we are dependent on energy to move us. The price of that energy has increased dramatically. I have yet to hear from the administration expressing any of their concerns, as a consequence of this demonstration by the independent truckers who are trying to bring a focus to what kinds of relief the administration is proposing because every indication is we are going to see higher oil prices, higher energy prices. There are some reasons for this. One of them is we have an increased dependence on imports of oil. We are currently 55-percent dependent on import oil. Most of these imports are coming from the Mideast. In the world of the oil market, the United States is certainly a giant consumer but, a bit player. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries really calls the tune, and the U.S. generally has to pay the piper. That organization is known by all of us as OPEC. There are 11 countries that make up OPEC, and they produce more than 40 percent of the world's oil and possess three-fourths of the world's proven reserves. The United States, as I indicated, imports 55 percent of the oil we use, or about 10.5 million barrels out of the 19.3 million barrels of oil consumed in the Nation in each and every day. The point I want to make is this is not just a one-time incident. If you go back to 1973, some of you will remember the lines around the block at the gas station. At that time, we had an Arab oil embargo. However, at that time, we were 36-percent dependent on imported oil, and we created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We said we would never expose ourselves to near 50-percent dependence on foreign oil. Today, we are 55-percent dependent, as I have indicated, and growing. It is our own Government's policies, or lack of policies, both local and national, that have handicapped our domestic industry. The result is consumers from New York to Oregon are paying the price. The truckers who are in Washington today, are paying the price, but not without some loud howls, seeking some Government relief. Several of these self- imposed handicaps are correctable if we would only wake up to a few realities. On the production side, we have banned oil exploration off a good portion of our coastline, including California and Florida, because a majority of these States oppose it. They have every right to oppose it, and we should honor it. However, we refuse to consider exploration in many areas where clearly it is supported, such as in some areas of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and my State of Alaska. We should, in these areas where the public supports exploration, get an aggressive leasing plan and proceed to open up these areas, using the advanced technology we have and getting on with the task of lessening our dependence on imported oil. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in my State of Alaska has often been mentioned as a potential for major oil discovery. From the standpoint of my State of Alaska, we have supplied this country with nearly 20 percent of the total crude oil produced in the last 27 years. We have done it through a pipeline and a development process that has been safe. The tragic accident of the Exxon Valdez was a tanker accident that had nothing to do with the production or transportation of oil by pipeline. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge consists of 19 million acres. The assumption is that the entire 19 million acres is going to be open for exploration. That is not correct. Congress has set aside 8 million acres of that tract in wilderness in perpetuity that can never be disturbed. Another 9.5 million acres have been set aside in a wildlife refuge. No development is allowed or is going to be allowed. The remainder of that 19 million acres is 1.5 million acres which geologists have identified as holding as much as 16 billion barrels of oil which would or could replace Saudi oil coming into the United States for the next 30 years. It is not a drop in the bucket by any means. Where is this administration going with regard to lessening our dependence on imported oil? It wants to raise taxes on the oil companies, saying the royalty valuation in the past has been unfair. Is that an incentive for exploration? I think not. The President's current proposal in his budget calls for more than $400 million in new taxes on the oil industry. Who is going to pay those taxes? It is going to be the American consumer. The consequences are evident. Since the Clinton administration assumed office, U.S. crude oil production has fallen by 17 percent, and during that period U.S. consumption of oil has gone up 14 percent. Why? Some people drive bigger cars than they used to. Some people like air- conditioning. Some people get on that jet airplane. What has happened to the industry? Our drilling rigs have gone from 532 active rigs operating in 1990 to 133 rigs operating in 2000. What is our policy? Our policy is to become more dependent on imports. On the downstream side, domestic policy really is not any better. Some of my New York colleagues have concerned themselves about the high price of heating oil. I am sympathetic with those who are dependent on that energy source, but while I sympathize on the one hand, I also point out that a good portion of this is self-inflicted. Prices are high because stocks are low. The State of New York itself reports that the petroleum bulk storage capacity has declined over the past 5 years by more than 15 percent, and the heating oil storage capacity has declined nearly 20 percent, largely due to environmental regulations. Those regulations may be well-founded, but the fact is they do not have either the storage for crude nor the storage they once had for heating oil. Of course, it has been a cold winter. When the heating oil supply is tight, many of my colleagues search for an excuse, while the answer is right in their backyard. Moving over to suggested relief that has been proposed by opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is our petroleum reserve in case of a national emergency, there is a suggestion that if we were to release that, somehow this would address the concerns we have over the high price of heating oil. Let me walk you through that scenario. First of all, the SPR is for supply disruption emergencies. It is a crude oil supply in salt caverns in Louisiana. As a consequence, it has a limited capacity to get out that crude. It is not heating oil. It is crude. So it has to be moved from SPR to refineries, be refined, and then go into the market. The difficulty with this is the refineries have crude supplies. So if you bring in SPR crude, you are going to have to offset that with the crude they have at the refinery already. The difficulty is in the mix of what the refineries make. As a consequence of low stocks going into this winter, based on the assumption this would not be a cold winter, those inventories were low. Coupled with the reduction in the storage supply for the fuel oil--and then later we did have a colder winter; we all saw the Coast Guard breaking ice in the Hudson River--as a consequence of that, we could not meet the demand for heating oil, and the price went up to nearly $2 a gallon. That was indeed unfortunate. Relief. The refiners continued to produce more heating oil. The weather began to cooperate, and reports suggested that Europe sent over refined product. The point I want to make is, SPR is not the answer because the simple reality is, you do not displace one type of crude oil with another. That does not relieve the problem. It is the mix within the refineries. Now we have an administration that is petitioning them to still produce large volumes of heating oil even though there are indications the inventories are now adequate. The real threat is that they should be producing gasoline soon for the summer market. We could see a shortage of gasoline this summer and perhaps retail price increases in the neighborhood of nearly $2 a gallon. We did a little comparison on the west coast, which is the area where I am from. We did a comparison for retail prices in three Western States and Alaska. We found California's regular gasoline was $1.38 per gallon; for Oregon's regular gasoline, it was $1.42 per gallon; for Washington's regular gasoline, it was $1.35 per gallon; and for my State of Alaska, it was $1.35 per gallon. But when we talk about self-inflicted problems, we need to look at the taxes imposed on each gallon of gas within the four States. California's tax burden is about 46.4 cents on the gallon; for Oregon, it is 45.4 cents per gallon; for Washington State, it is about the same. The taxes include Federal, State, and local taxes in the three States. California includes a sales tax, as well, and has the added burden of 5 to 8 cents a gallon its residents must pay for reformulated gasoline. Oregon is a little different. It adds to its cost by banning self- service as an option at the pumps. In other words, you do not fill up your car in Oregon. Somebody does it for you. You pay for it. The estimated additional cost is about 15 cents a gallon. But in Alaska, my State, the combined taxes are only 26 cents. Without taxes, my State of Alaska actually pays the highest price for gasoline of the four States; yet we produce it all--or a good portion of it. Gasoline prices. If you take off gas taxes, take off the cost of additives, take off the cost in relation to whether or not somebody fills your tank, then you begin to be able to identify what the true costs are to the consumer for a gallon of gasoline. My State of Alaska supplies 46 percent of the current stock to the west coast. But barrels of oil from Alaska are beginning to decline. We are producing little more than a million barrels a day. Virtually all of that is shipped to Washington and California; significant portions go from Washington to Oregon. California's Senators object to any development in the Arctic. But without new development, the production will continue to decline, and it will be necessary for the west coast and their west coast constituents to purchase more oil from even more expensive sources, such as the Mideast. How are they going to get the oil in? In foreign tankers owned by foreign companies that clearly have more of an environmental exposure than our own domestic fleet. Common sense tells us we should stop handicapping our industry. We should do this by encouraging exploration, development of our reserves, and not increasing taxes on this industry. Oil development in my State can be done right. It is environmentally sound. It keeps land disturbance to a minimum. To give you some idea, out of the 19 million acres of ANWR that we talked about, of the million and a half acres that Congress has the authority to open up--and I add, this body voted to open it up; and the President vetoed it a number of years ago--the footprint is estimated to be no larger than the footprint of the Dulles International Airport, assuming the rest of Virginia were wilderness. That is to give you some idea of the magnitude of what the footprint is. It is relatively small. Again, I remind you that the estimates are that the ANWR area could produce more than 16 billion barrels of oil, which would equate to about what we bring in from Saudi Arabia over a 30-year period. Yet this administration would rather bolster the oil output of Saddam Hussein by lifting oil production limits in Iraq, which is what they have done. Should we really be placing our energy security on OPEC decisions? The administration pursues policies that discourage investment within our borders, driving investment overseas, and our jobs overseas. If we are going to participate in this energy race, we are going to need to get in the game. If we choose to continue to drive oil production offshore, then we will have no room--or little room--to complain about the high price of that decision, or the insecurity of our future oil supplies. There is no question in my mind that our national energy security is very much at risk. We still do not seem to get it. We do not understand the vulnerability of increasing our dependence on imports. If we look over our shoulders at world crude markets, since 1997, we have gone from a low of $10 a barrel to $30 a barrel. To some extent, we have explained that this was due to the slowdown of the Asian economy, mild winters, and increased Saudi and Venezuela production. Then we have also seen OPEC kind of get its act together with self- discipline. It cut production 6 percent. They decided they would rather sell less oil but sell it higher than sell more oil and sell it lower. Then we saw the Asian economy rebound. Winters in the U.S. got colder even with global warming. The thought from OPEC was: Wait a minute. We are going to hold off for a little while. We saw the low stocks as a result of this. Of course, we have discussed the heating oil situation and SPR and OPEC and ANWR. But when we get back to what the administration is doing about it, we are still stuck with the reality that they are throwing more taxes at us--$400 million. They are not encouraging the industry to go out and drill, as evidenced by the reduction in drilling rigs. Some of them say: We will simply go out and hook up to natural gas. The National Petroleum Council report indicated that is not going to be a viable alternative. They said that we consume about 20 trillion cubic feet of gas today. We will be consuming about 31 trillion cubic feet in the next 10 years. We do not have the infrastructure in to meet that demand. It is going to have to be an expenditure of about $1.5 trillion. Gas will not be cheap. The Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, won't make public lands available to produce natural gas. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission puts up environmental roadblocks to building new gas pipelines to the Northeast. Where is the power going to come from? Some would say hydroelectric. We have already seen the proposal by the Secretary of the Interior. He wants to tear down four dams in the Pacific Northwest. Now a FERC Commissioner, Commissioner Hoecker, claims that FERC has the authority to tear these dams down. Moving over to coal, the administration is proposing to take a number of plants down through EPA decisions. Those were plants that were grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act, with the assumption that they would operate for a period of time. As the power industry has attempted to maintain those plants, they have been subjected to criminal prosecution by the EPA for extending the life of the plants. I am not debating the issue of, if you stay within your permit by continuing to maintain your plant at a level that you have to, whether you are extending the life of that plant or not. But that is the dilemma for the coal industry. We have already debated for days the reality and role of the nuclear industry, the fact that it contributes 20 percent of the power in this country. The administration does not want to address a solution on its watch. It would just as soon let the industry choke on its own waste. While we had 64 votes the other day, we were still a few short of a veto override, and the President threatened to veto the legislation that would address, temporarily, relief so our nuclear industry could continue to produce power. With the attitude of the administration, it is evident that in the area of nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, there are simply no alternatives being proposed. I suggest to the Senate that is an irresponsible attitude. It seems all this administration wants to do is to hang on until it is over--and I can't wait--in the hope that there won't be some kind of calamity that will disrupt their departure. I suggest there is going to be a calamity. It relates to what is happening in Washington today with the truckers. This is proof the folks out there are fed up. They are looking to Government for a response. They are fed up with the administration's attitude which suggests we should go over to OPEC and beg that they increase production, that we become more dependent on imported oil. The realities of that are totally unacceptable to this Senator. It is going to get more serious. OPEC would like to see oil at somewhere between $20 and $25; that is good for OPEC. I suppose now that it is $30, it might be good for the United States. OPEC is having a meeting in March, but some economists suggest it is too late. We are going to be increasingly exposed to increased gasoline prices this summer. Some suggest we are going to be subjected to $40 oil, if Saddam Hussein chooses to cut off his supply in protest of United Nations sanctions. Here we are in the United States, dependent on what Saddam Hussein might do to his oil production that could affect our price of energy. Incredible, Mr. President, incredible, but nevertheless true. As I have indicated, the past year alone, oil has tripled in cost to $30 from less than $11; heating oil, nearly $2 a gallon; our airline tickets, $20 surcharge. One of these days when you go to fill up that sports utility vehicle, it is going to cost you $60 to fill your gas tank. People in this technological age wonder what the role of oil is. Is oil energy king? Well, let's look at inflation. We hear Chairman Greenspan worry about inflation, about oil prices increasing. The Secretary of Energy, in the meantime, tours six oil-producing nations. He says he can't ignore the potential for oil to have an impact on inflation. He says what OPEC does matters, and it sure does. I think we are at a point of reckoning where oil has reemerged as a political and economic threat to our economy. Now, here we are, looking at dependence on Mideast oil-producing countries, and we are asking them to change their cash-flow to accommodate us and increase production. I wonder if they will be inclined to do that. If we look at some of the realities associated with inflation, I think we have to look over our shoulder and recognize what happened in the past. Many people don't remember the gas lines in 1973. December of 1980, inflation in this country was 11 percent; the prime rate was 20.5 percent. People started to wake up. Are they waking up now? The signs are there. Is OPEC willing to sacrifice windfall oil profits to help keep economic growth on track in the United States, Europe, and Asia at their own expense? I happen to believe that charity begins at home. We have become dependent on OPEC. Can we be dependent on them increasing the supply of oil? A source of information from the International Energy Agency says that OPEC will have to increase by 10 percent just to keep up with world demands. If they don't want to keep up with world demands, the price goes up, doesn't it? That will increase production somewhere between 4.5 and 12 percent, or between 1.2 and 3.1 million barrels per day. A lot of people don't realize how long it takes for a barrel of oil from the Mideast to reach their gas station. It is roughly 6 weeks. If we go into this summer with the current forecast we are getting, we will see gasoline at $2 a gallon. We depend on oil to keep us warm, for travel, for our homes, sport utility vehicles, on and on, and we are concerned about prosperity. We are concerned about inflation. There was an article by Daniel Yergin with the Cambridge Energy Research Association, an expert on oil. He indicated there are three things that can get people concerned about inflation and spook the stock market. When I highlight them, you will agree they are here. It is the price and availability of labor. It is the cost of money or interest rates that are on the rise. And it is the increased price of oil. We are starting to move. Mark my words, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development has estimated that every $10 rise in the price of oil lifts inflation by\1/2\ percentage point and reduces economic growth by \1/4\ percent. If that isn't what is happening right now, I will trade places with the President of this body. Oil prices have accounted for the doubling of inflation, to 2 percent from 1.1 percent in the last year. I quote Chairman Greenspan: I've been through too many oil shocks to not take them seriously. If price changes, it impacts the economy. These are a few of the highlights of where the United States is, why the truckers are circulating in Washington, DC. What is this administration doing about it? They are kowtowing to the Arab world. They are wringing their hands. They have no positive suggestions. Least of all, they have not made one single statement to encourage domestic exploration and production in this country. One wonders what you learn by history; some people say ``not much.'' If you look over your shoulder at where we were in the early 1970s with the Arab oil embargo, where we are today--and, of course, in the interim we fought a war over oil in Iraq and Kuwait. Today, we are right back there, only we are more dependent on the Mideast. If we don't take the steps now to reduce that dependence, this is going to happen again. Keep in mind that, for the time being, it isn't over. We are just starting into this crisis. This administration must be held accountable for the lack of an energy policy in this country. There is no energy policy on nuclear power, no energy policy on coal, no energy policy on gas, no energy policy on oil. It kind of drifts out there. And they are well-meaning, but some extreme environmental groups basically propel the direction of this administration. It is no direction at all because there is no energy policy. So as we look at the increased price of energy, we look at the frustration of the truckers in Washington, DC, and we look at what the administration is doing to address it, we have to come to the conclusion that the administration's efforts--if you can identify them at all--are limited to pleading with the Mideast oil barons to simply produce more oil. That is inadequate. They are simply exporting jobs and dollars. We are going to have to turn this around in the Congress of the United States. The administration won't stand up and recognize the reality that charity begins at home. We have the resources in this country, we have the technology, we have the capital, and we can relieve our dependence on imports if given the support of the Clinton administration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, February 24, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to examine energy supply and demand issues relating to crude oil, heating oil, and transportation fuels in light of the rise in price of these fuels. Those who wish to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Presentation of oral testimony is by committee invitation only. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as this debate comes to an end, I think it appropriate to respond to my friend from New Mexico relative to what I understand he said--that he had not seen a real letter from the Governors opposing taking title. I don't know whether the White House will not make that available, but we have it here. I will be happy to share it with him. I will put it in the Record because it shows all the signatures of all the Governors: The Honorable Howard Dean, Governor of Vermont; the Honorable Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida; the Honorable Angus King, Jr., Governor of Maine; the Honorable John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon; the Honorable Jeanne Shaheen, Governor of New Hampshire; the Honorable Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota; and the Honorable Tom Vilsack, Governor of Iowa. There are more coming, I am told. I hope we can put that particular criticism to rest. This is not an imaginary letter. This a letter from the Governors objecting, if you will, to the situation of leaving the waste in their States for the specific reason that they don't trust the Federal Government. The reason they do not trust the Federal Government is the Federal Government has not performed on its contract after taking $15 billion from the ratepayers to take the waste. They are fearful that the waste will stay in their States under the control of the Federal Government. That is a legitimate concern. Again, I refer to the chart of where that waste is. It is in those 40 States. It is in 40 States, and each Member is going to have to respond as to why they voted to leave that waste in their State. We have had questions brought up about the land in Nevada. It is kind of fuzzy because this is beneficial to Nevada. Now they are saying they did not have any notice and they don't have the maps. The maps are in our office. We have them for the counties. I am sure the minority could get them. I am sure the two Senators from Nevada could get the maps of their own counties. We have them in our office, in fact, and I will try to get them in the Record so they can see them. As far as the land transfer is concerned, it has always been in previous bills. These are smokescreens. Our friends from Nevada are trying to explain why this isn't a good deal. They wanted it. It is there. Now they are saying: Well, just wait a minute; we don't have the facts. We have them. They are there and available for anybody. The land transfer is authorized in the previous bills. Let's not beat around the bush. In the remaining time I have, I want to highlight what this bill really accomplishes. I think the minority ranking member would recognize that we have tried to work with him on his list of alternatives. We addressed his concern on the interim storage. Our bill uses the WIPP transportation model. EPA has the sole authority to set the standard. We took out the international collaboration in transmutation which they wanted. We couldn't take everything, but we certainly tried. This is a valuable piece of legislation as it stands because we have in this substitute dropped the interim storage. Isn't this kind of ironic? We dropped the interim storage. The administration was opposed to the interim storage in Nevada. The idea was that we could move this stuff out at a critical time and put it out there. They said: No, we can't do that until Yucca is finalized--until it is finally licensed. But now they are doing it twice. They are having it both ways. They are saying we will just leave it in the State. Then it becomes interim in the State. These Governors are smart enough to figure it out. I hope every Member of this body is because it is a flimflam. That is just what it is. The administration wants to have it both ways. They do not want interim storage. They want the interim storage in the States. It drops interim storage. It requires Congress to approve any increase in fees to protect the consumer. It sets schedules for development of a repository. It authorizes backup storage at the repository for any spent fuel that the utilities can't store on site. It allows the EPA to set radiation standards after June 1, 2001; prior to that consultation only with NAS and NRC, to ensure that any standard is the best science available. What in the world is wrong with that? It authorizes settlement agreements for outstanding litigation. It requires an election to settle within 180 days as requested by the administration. In other words, it brings them together. Finally, it transfers 76,000 acres. Let me conclude by saying that each Member is going to have to respond as to why they left this waste in their State if they don't support this bill. I encourage my colleagues to recognize that it is time to bring this matter to an end. Let's support the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I note a Dear Colleague letter is circulating this morning from one of our colleagues from Montana and one of our colleagues from California. It concerns the critical environmental vote that will occur at 11 o'clock on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments. It identifies that the protection of the health and safety of American citizens should be our highest priority. I agree with that. It further states that in order to do this, all decisions must be made based on science, not politics. It suggests this legislation does not do that. I implore my colleagues, what we are attempting to do is use the best science available. That is why we brought the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Science Academy into the recommending process for EPA. But I point out for the benefit of anyone who still has a doubt that the Environmental Protection Agency has the final authority on determining the radiation standards. But the effort is to get the best science. Let's be honest with one another. Every time this legislation comes up, it comes down to one thing: Nobody wants the waste. I have said time and again, if you throw it up in the air, it has to come down somewhere and that somewhere is Nevada. That decision was made some time ago. We have expended $6 billion in the Yucca Mountain effort. The criticism of this legislation to which this Dear Colleague letter points is it doesn't address an alternative. It is innuendo to say the legislation ``unnecessarily slows EPA's ability.'' It can't do anything until it is licensed. The ``legislation conveys undisclosed acreage of Federal land to Nye and Lincoln Counties in Nevada without providing any maps of the areas or conducting any hearings.'' That is simply not true. We are trying to accommodate the two affected counties in Nevada by giving them BLM-accessed land. What in the world is wrong with that? Is that contrary to the public health and safety? To me it is good for the people of Nevada. I am sure if you asked the two Senators from Nevada whether their constituents should receive this land, they would have a pretty positive opinion. What we have here are more smokescreens. We have a statement by the minority ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works saying they have the sole discretion over nonmilitary environmental regulations and control of atomic energy. Well, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we have the obligation to address the disposal of the nuclear waste. We have attempted to do that in a responsible manner. Yes, this is politics. This is hard core politics. It is trying to accommodate my good friends from Nevada over their objection to put the waste in their State. The Clinton administration, the administration of Vice President Gore, simply doesn't want to address it on their watch. That is all there is to it. Each Member who votes against this legislation better be prepared to go home and explain why they voted to keep the waste in their individual State, when we had a chance to move it out to one central location at Yucca Mountain. There it is, 80 sites in 40 States. We have a chance to move it to one location. The Northeast corridor State Governors said: We don't trust the Federal Government; they didn't take the waste in 1998 when it was contractually due; the ratepayers paid $15 billion; they broke the sanctity of a contractual relationship. What the Governors are saying is they don't want the waste stored in their State by the Federal Government taking title because they are convinced the Federal Government will leave it there. Well, they very well could be right. As a consequence, we have this waste stored in these States on the way to the schoolgrounds, the playgrounds, the hospitals, homes. We have it on the shores of the Great Lakes--Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Superior, Lake Ontario--the great rivers--the Mississippi, the Colorado, the Columbia--the Nation's seashores. We must resolve to put it at a permanent site. That is all there is to it. We have a good bill. This is a responsible environmental vote. The environmental community has said, we are opposed to this legislation. What are they for? Are they for leaving the waste where it is? Well, they wouldn't respond to that question. Each Member of this body is elected to make a responsible decision and not be led by groups motivated by their own particular ideology. Make no mistake about it: A large segment of America's environmental community wants to kill the nuclear power industry. They want to kill the nuclear industry because they are opposed to it. But they don't look at the contribution that industry makes to clean air, and they do not address the responsibility of what the alternative is. So a responsible environmental vote is to move this from these 40 States and 80 sites to one central location that is designed for it. Make no mistake about it: These temporary locations are not designed for it. There is criticism that this is some kind of a full blown attack by the nuclear power industry. What they are seeking is relief. They are seeking relief from the waste that has been generated over an extended period of time and the inability of the Federal Government to meet its contractual commitments. That should make every Member of this body indignant. But that is what happened. Do you know who is taking it in the shorts? The American taxpayer, because the claims against the Federal Government for not taking that waste under the contract are somewhere between $40 and $80 billion. That is about $1,400 per family every year in this country. Nobody seems to care about it. I care about it. I am sure you do, Mr. President. We have a good bill. It uses the WIPP transportation model. It is safe transport. The States decide the routes. Some of my colleagues are fearful it is going to be moved by rail. It is not going to be moved by rail. It is very doubtful. Rails don't go direct. A rail goes from one railyard to the next railyard. Oftentimes those railyards are around areas of high concentration of population. That doesn't make sense. The Governors are going to have control of where these routes are determined. They are going to be safe routes because we are going to have professionals out there determining the safeguards, the drivers, and so forth. In fact, we submitted a letter yesterday from the national Teamsters Union. They are concerned because they want trained people. Their trained people will be involved. Finally, EPA has the sole authority to set the radiation standard. Don't let anybody tell you differently. I love my friends from Nevada. I really do. I have a great deal of respect for them. I know where they are coming from. Do you know what they said in the hearing? They said, regardless of what the safeguards are, what assurances we have, we are not going to support a bill that would put the waste in Nevada. I understand that. So it means it doesn't make any difference what we do, what the minority does, what the Senator from California and the Senator from Montana do. We will never be able to convince them. I understand that. So let's recognize that for what it is. The Secretary may settle lawsuits and save the taxpayers this $80 billion liability. This legislation allows early receipt of fuel, once construction is authorized, as early as 2006. The nuclear waste fee can only be increased by Congress. It prevents unreasonable increases in the fees. We provide benefits to counties most affected by repository land conveyance of the 76,000 acres to Nye and Lincoln Counties. This is the land that Nevada wanted. Well, I wonder how bad they want it now. We struggled with this problem for many years. The time is right. S. 1287 is the solution. Utility consumers have paid over $15 billion into that waste fund. We cannot jeopardize the health and safety of citizens across the country by leaving that spent nuclear fuel in 80 sites in 40 States. That is irresponsible. We should move it once and for all where it belongs: at a remote site on the desert. I will show my colleagues that picture one more time, where we have had 800 nuclear tests over a period of 50 years. That is the site. We risk, if we can't get this legislation through, losing 20 percent of our clean generation. Where are we going to make it up? We can't jeopardize our economic and environmental future by ignoring the nuclear waste management issues. That is what we are going to do if this legislation is not supported. We risk losing 103 nuclear powerplants. I urge Members to vote for S. 1287 and finally put this problem behind us. And one more time, Mr. President--remember, each Member who votes against this bill is going to be obliged to explain why they voted to keep the waste in one of the 40 States that they come from when they had a chance to move it to one central location, Yucca Mountain.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely not. Spent nuclear fuel cannot go to South Carolina under the specific terms of the amendment's Backup Storage Capacity provisions, which states that the government shall: ``* * * transport such spent fuel to, and store such spent fuel at, the repository site. * * *'' That site is Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. How much time remains?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, what is the remaining time on this side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Chair a good morning. I ask, how much time is remaining for the majority?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Motorists Privacy Act of 2000. This legislation has become necessary because technological advancements threaten to allow government and private enterprise to develop a vast database of information about the comings and goings of ordinary Americans. Recently, I learned of a device known as an electronic measurement unit (EMU). EMUs are placed on billboards along highways and at the entrances to stadiums and concert locations in Atlanta, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Boston, and a variety of other cities throughout the nation. These shoe-box size devices instantly determine what radio station a car radio is tuned to by detecting electronic signals emitted from the oscillators in every car radio. These devices are capable of measuring tens of thousands of radios in passing cars every day. And they provide nearly instantaneous information on the number of people listening to a radio station at any given time. This valuable data can then be sold to radio owners, who can then adjust their advertising rates based on listenership. Mr. President, there is nothing wrong with surveying radio usage so long as a citizen voluntarily chooses to participate in such a survey. However, when private enterprise or the government begin to monitor radio or television usage, without the knowledge of the citizen, then a line is crossed that can only lead down the path to Big Brother. And as far as this Senator is concerned, that is not going to happen so long as I am a Member of the Senate. When a citizen is sitting inside of his or her car, there is a 100 percent expectation of privacy that what is said and listened to is private. Motorists, rightfully, should have no suspicion that they are being monitored by the government or by private enterprise. However, in the case of EMUs, few motorists are aware that these devices even exist and in most cases, no attempt is made to inform motorists when they enter an area in which EMUs are utilized. Mr. President, what right does a company or government have to snoop on what people are listening to in their automobiles? It is not a very great leap to imagine a world where EMUs track not only what you listen to in the car, but combined with remote television cameras, track your driving patterns. And surely, such devices could be installed in neighborhoods in order to monitor what families watch on television in their homes. Surely such invasions of privacy cannot be tolerated. Therefore, I am today introducing the Motorists Privacy Act which outlaws the use of electronic measurement units to scan car radios. Regardless of whether or not these scans are anonymous, motorists deserve the same expectation of privacy within their cars as does a homeowner. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.