Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of H.J. Res. 123, the continuing resolution; that the resolution be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to welcome the President pro tempore, the senior Senator in this body, Senator Thurmond. I also thank the guest Chaplain for the prayer.NOTICE-- OCTOBER 23, 2000 A final issue of the Congressional Record for the 106th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on November 29, 2000, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through November 28. The final issue will be dated November 29, 2000, and will be delivered on Friday, December 1, 2000. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``Records@Reporters''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. WILLIAM M. THOMAS, Chairman.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5110, which is at the desk.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate, therefore, will convene on Tuesday, November 14, at 12 noon, or at 8:30 p.m. tomorrow if a problem arises with the long-term continuing resolution. The Senate will be in a period of morning business on Tuesday, November 14 until the Senate recesses for the weekly party conferences at 12:30. Negotiations will continue during this short break, and therefore Senators should be aware that votes are expected to occur on November 14. Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hour of 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 12 noon on Tuesday, November 14, under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 159. I further ask unanimous consent that if the House of Representatives does not pass H.J. Res. 84 as passed by the Senate, the Senate reconvene at 8:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 2. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, November 14, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with the time equally divided between Senator Lott and Senator Daschle.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent the Senate recede from its amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (H.R. 4846) The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the House disagree to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4846) entitled ``An Act to establish the National Recording Registry in the Library of Congress to maintain and preserve sound recordings that are culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant, and for other purposes.''.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to any of these bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed en bloc to the following bills which are at the desk: H.R. 5302; and, H.R. 5388.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I listened with great attention to my friend, Senator Dodd, who I think expresses the feelings that we all have for Senator Moynihan. I first met Senator Moynihan before I came to the Senate. He visited Alaska, my home. Nobody could suggest that he is anything but awe-inspiring, enthusiastic, and interested, the type who leaves one after a short meeting with the feeling that here indeed is an extraordinary individual, a true statesman, a visionary. And the type of individual who we have all had an opportunity to share and enjoy and love during his tenure here. I extend my heartiest best wishes to Senator Moynihan and his family as he departs this body, and it is with fondness for the contributions he has made. He has made this a much better body because of his contributions. I share the sentiments of my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this article explains that ``The California Coastal Commission will be approving the creation of a coastal nuclear waste dump just south of the Orange County border.'' The repository will be at the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant, and thousands of spent nuclear fuel rods would be stored there by Southern California Edison until the year 2050. That is 50 years, Mr. President. Isn't it interesting that the State of California, which has refused to site even a low-level nuclear waste storage facility in the Mojave Desert is now going to be home to a high-level nuclear waste dump near the beaches of southern California? Referring briefly to the proposed Ward Valley waste facility, which would handle medical waste and other low-level waste--the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, stopped this site from becoming a reality. As a consequence, that waste is currently stored in hospitals and research facilities and universities--generally, anywhere near where the waste is created. A lot of it is medical waste and other low-level waste associated with diagnostic tests, cancer treatment and other types of medical and scientific research. But it is all over the place. It is in places that weren't designed to store that waste long-term. However, national environmental groups and Hollywood activists made Ward Valley a rally cry, claiming water would be contaminated by the waste and seep through the desert and ultimately into the Colorado River. This is low-level material that we are talking about. It involves clothing, like gloves and coveralls from utility workers, material from medical research and any other items that have come into contact with radioactive materials. This low-level waste is produced at hospitals, powerplants, and research facilities that store this waste and periodically transfer it to waste facilities in South Carolina or Utah. However, these same groups apparently are powerless to stop the San Onofre storage. Why? Because the responsibility to regulate high-level waste belongs to the Federal Government, not the State. And since the Federal Government has not done its job, the bottom line is that there is no Federal repository for high-level nuclear waste, as promised by the U.S. Government. It is an obligation that has been unfulfilled by the eight years of the Clinton-Gore administration, who has chosen to ignore the contract, hoping they can get out of town and the election will be over before this issue comes up. How ironic that this issue of the failure of the Federal Government to honor its contract should come up just a little less than a week before the election. As I have stated, that repository was supposed to open in 1998. Failure to do so left the States to come up with their own solutions and subjects the taxpayers to billions of dollars in liability. High-level waste includes spent fuel rods removed from nuclear reactors. This Senator from Alaska introduced S. 1287 in this Congress to allow the high-level nuclear waste to go to the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level storage facility in Nevada for temporary storage as soon as the facility was licensed in 2006. The California delegation voted against that bill and the Clinton administration vetoed the bill. We are one vote short of a veto override. One of the arguments made was that there was a possibility that the nuclear waste could seep into the water table and move into California. Imagine that. Now I don't believe that is possible, nor do a great number of respected scientist. However, isn't it ironic that Californians will now have to cope with those fears in their own backyard because Yucca is still not opened? Rather than worry about waste in Nevada, they get to worry about waste in California. The site at San Onofre has operational nuclear plants as well as a shut down research reactor. Unfortunately, once shut down begins, they have no place to take the waste, so the waste stays there on the area adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, an area not designed for long-term storage of waste. Nevertheless, there is no alternative because the Federal Government has failed to fulfill its obligation to take spent fuel beginning in 1998. Let me make it clear, I don't believe there is any danger from the dry casks that will be stored at San Onofre, any more than there was a danger from the low-level waste that would have been effectively stored in the Mojave Desert that could not safely be stored at the Ward Valley site. This California solution--if it is a solution--simply confirms what we have been saying all along: No one wants this waste, but it has to go somewhere. It has finally come down and landed in San Onofre. If the waste isn't ultimately shipped to the temporary facility at Yucca Mountain, it is going to be stored at 80 sites throughout the United States. California now may have its own central repository, at least for Southern California Edison. Mr. President, this solution is not a solution. And what people need to realize is this situation is really just the tip of the iceberg. While it is applicable to California today, there are over 80 sites throughout this country that will become de facto Yucca Mountains. That is the consequence of not opening up a permanent storage site. And many other states are in the same situation as California--waste to store and no place to store it. To give you some idea, in Florida, 16 percent of the electricity comes from nuclear plants, 5 nuclear power reactors, and almost 2,000 metric tons of waste is in storage. In Michigan, 24 percent of the electricity comes from 4 nuclear power reactors, with 1,500 metric tons of waste on hand there. In Ohio, 11 percent of electricity is generated from nuclear energy by two nuclear plants with 520 tons of waste. In Washington State, 6 percent of the electricity comes from nuclear, and there is about 300 tons of research reactor fuel. In Pennsylvania, 38 percent of its power comes from nine nuclear reactors with 3,000 metric tons of waste. This situation in California just proves what I have been saying all along. If we don't take responsible action now to solve our high-level waste problems by siting a repository in the Nevada desert, we will end up with somewhere in the area of 80 to 100 sites throughout the Nation storing this waste in environments that are not approved environments for long-term storage. What is happening in California today will happen all over the nation. They will now have, in California, their very own mini-Yucca Mountain for the next 50 years. The voters in California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and Illinois need to understand who bears the responsibility for this lack, if you will, of a conscientious effort to take the waste at the time it was contracted for in 1998. I can only assume that Vice President Gore wants to keep this waste in the States near schools, and hospitals--wherever it is temporarily stored. And the reality of what happened in California today at San Onofre is simply the tip of the iceberg. This administration has been totally inept in meeting its responsibilities to the nuclear industry; It has breached a contract, it has ignored the contribution of the nuclear industry and its contribution to providing 20 percent of the clean, emissions-free power generated in this country; and, totally ignored the reality that with that clean power comes the responsibility of determining how to handle the waste. They have handled it all right. They set it in concrete in California in the new site, as I have indicated, at San Onofre, north of San Diego near La Jolla, CA. Imagine creating a coastal nuclear waste just south of Orange County.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me remind those of you who have followed the issue of energy in this country and the contribution of the nuclear industry of 20 percent of the electricity that is generated in this Nation, with an observation that I made some time ago, and that is this industry is strangling on its waste as a consequence of the inability of the Federal Government to honor the sanctity of a contract made some years ago--that the Government would take that waste beginning in 1998. The ratepayers, over the last decades, have extended about $11 billion to the Federal Government to ensure that the Federal Government would be financially able to take the waste. The bottom line is that 1998 has come and gone, and the Federal Government is in violation of its contractual commitment. As a consequence, litigation is pending for this breach of contract, subjecting the taxpayers to somewhere between $40 billion and $60 billion in liability. Now, I stated some time ago on this issue that if you throw the waste up in the air, it has to come down somewhere. Nobody wants it. I was wrong on that. It was thrown up in the air and now it is coming down. Where is it coming down? Well, it is coming down in California, in a place called San Onofre. That is near La Jolla, north of San Diego. It is on the California coast where there are decommissioned and operating nuclear plants. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Los Angeles Times of today, November 1, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me read a portion: Another surprise was a solid support (54 percent to 38 percent) for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR's coastal plain could hold as much oil as Alaska's highly productive Prudhoe Bay. I think that is a significant indication of the public posture and the change. As we have noted for some time, Vice President Gore is very much opposed to opening this area. This body, in 1995, passed legislative action authorizing the opening of ANWR, but the President vetoed that action. We have today a clear indication of support from a majority of Americans who now favor responsible drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. For the sake of keeping this matter in balance, I remind my colleagues there are 19 million acres in that area. Out of that 19 million acres, which is about the size of the State of South Carolina, 9 million acres has been set aside in a refuge, 8.5 million acres has been set aside in a wilderness. This is in perpetuity. Congress left out 1.5 million to be determined at a future date whether it should be open for exploration. Geologists say it is the most likely area in North America where a major oil field might be discovered, and there might be as much as 16 billion barrels in that field. That would equate to what we import from Saudi Arabia for a 30-year period of time. Some of the environmentalists say it is only a 200-day supply. Isn't that in error? That is assuming all other oil production in the world stops. Prudhoe Bay came on about 23 years ago. It has been producing about 20 percent of the total crude oil produced in this Nation for that period of time. They said it was only going to produce 10 billion barrels. It has produced 12 billion barrels so far and still produces a million barrels a day. The prospects of finding oil domestically, in the volumes we are talking about, in this small sliver of the Coastal Plain are very good. As a consequence, it is rather comforting to note that a distinguished periodical such as the Christian Science Monitor should conduct an independent poll and find that 54 percent of Americans solidly support opening up ANWR for drilling; 38 percent are opposed. One other point that deserves consideration has been underplayed by the media and underplayed by the administration. That is the situation with regard to natural gas. Governor Bush's energy plan is more than just increasing the domestic supply of oil. He would also expand access to natural gas on Federal lands and build more gas pipeline. Even the Vice President has said natural gas is vital for home heating and electricity and fuel for the future. Mr. President, 50 percent of U.S. homes, or 56 million homes, use natural gas for heating. It provides 15 percent of the Nation's electric power; and 95 percent of our new electric power plants will be powered by natural gas as a fuel, partially of choice but partially of necessity. You cannot build a coal-fired plant; you cannot build a nuclear plant; you cannot build a new hydroelectric plant. Where are you going to go? You are going to go to natural gas. You can get a permit. But all the emphasis of the electric industry is towards natural gas. Putting on more pressure increases the prices, as I said, from $2.16 a year ago to just over $4.50 today. The ratepayers are going to be paying this. They just have not seen it yet. It has not been included in your electric bills, but it will be very soon, and you will feel it in your heating bill. The administration has refused to allow exploration or production of natural gas on Federal lands. There are huge areas of the overthrust belt in Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado that have been off limits. The administration has withdrawn about 60 percent of the productive area for oil and gas discoveries since 1992. The difficulty we are having here is, as they put Federal lands off limits to new natural gas production, we find ourselves with simply no place to go other than the offshore areas of Texas and Louisiana and the offshore areas of Mississippi and Alabama as the major areas of OCS activity. My State of Alaska and California are off limits; the East Coast is off limits. They have withdrawn huge areas from our Forest Service--roadless areas. They have put on a moratorium from OCS drilling until 2012 in many areas. The Vice President would even cancel existing oil and gas leases. Where is the energy going to come from? The Vice President said during his first debate: We have to bet on the future and move away from the current technologies to have a whole new generation of more efficient, cleaner energy technologies. I buy that, and so does the American public. But he forgets to be specific: Where? How? Why? How much? Where are you going to get the energy? I think we all agree in this case our energy strategy should include improved energy efficiency as well as expanded use of alternative fuels and renewable energy. But we are still going to need energy from oil, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear, and we are not bringing these other sources into the mix. The Vice President said he would make a bet. He will bet on diminishing the supply of conventional fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas. That is his bet, that you would like that; that you would be more than willing to pay higher prices for energy and make renewables more competitive. You would like that. He will support higher energy taxes, just as he did in 1993 when he cast the tie- breaking vote in this body to raise the gasoline tax. This is in his book ``Earth In The Balance.'' Clearly, he wants to raise energy prices to effect conservation. But the reality is, as we put more central controls on energy use, he would have us set a standard for each part of your everyday life. He would tell you what kind of energy you could use, how much of it you could use, how much you would have to pay for it. That is part of it. That is in his book. By contrast, Governor Bush would harness America's innovation to use the energy resources of today to give us the technologies of tomorrow. Governor Bush will set aside the up-front funds from leasing Federal lands for oil and gas, so-called bid bonuses, to be earmarked for basic research into renewable energy. Production royalties for oil and gas leases will be invested in energy conservation and low-income family programs such as LIHEAP and other weatherization assistance. Using new tax incentives, Governor Bush will expand the use of renewable energy in the marketplace, building on a successful experience in the State of Texas. As a result of Governor Bush's efforts on electricity restructuring, Texas will be one of the largest markets for renewable energy, some 2,000 new megawatts. Governor Bush will maintain existing hydroelectric dams and streamline the FERC relicensing program. We know the current administration wants to take down some of the dams in the Pacific Northwest. Governor Bush will responsibly address the risks posed by global climate change through investing in getting clean energy technologies to the market. The Vice President would rather have us ratify and implement a costly and flawed Kyoto Protocol that puts the United States at an economic disadvantage. Some of us remember the vote we had here with respect to climate change and the Kyoto Protocol--the Byrd/Hagel Resolution. I think it was 95-0. The administration asked for our opinion. We are a body of advice and consent. We gave our advice. I think that vote pretty much indicates a lack of consent. That particular proposal exempts the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and India. In conclusion, the bottom line is there is a clear contrast between the candidates on the subject of energy policy. The Vice President wants to raise prices to limit supply of fossil energy which makes up currently over 80 percent of our energy needs. We wish it were less, but that is the reality. He wants to replace it with solar, wind, biomass--technologies that are promising but they are simply not available or affordable at this time. Governor Bush will expand domestic production of oil and natural gas, ensuring affordable and secure supplies, reducing energy costs, and keeping inflation at bay. Governor Bush will use the energy of today to yield cleaner, more affordable energy sources of tomorrow. The choice for consumers is very clear. Let me leave you with one thought with regard to our foreign policy. Currently we are importing about 600,000 barrels a day from Iraq. I know the occupant of the chair recalls in 1991 and 1992 when we fought a war, the Persian Gulf war, we had 147 American service personnel who gave their lives in that war, with 427 wounded; we had 23 taken prisoner. How quickly we forget. Now we are over there enforcing, if you will, an aerial blockade, a no-fly zone. We have flown over 300,000 sorties, individual missions, enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq. We have bombed; we have fired; we have intercepted. Fortunately, we have not suffered a loss. But what kind of foreign policy is it where we buy his oil, put it in our airplanes, and go over and bomb him? I leave you with that thought, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, 4 years ago, a theme in the election was, ``It's the economy, stupid.'' Well, that is true in this election, but there is something a little different: ``It's the energy crisis, stupid.'' The Vice President would have us think the economy is the issue that will get him elected President, that he and President Clinton came up with a plan to tax gasoline and Social Security benefits, and once he cast the tie-breaking vote to increase your taxes and my taxes, interest rates came down, the stock market went up, and the economy prospered. The Vice President and the Democrats conveniently ignore the fact that the economy had already begun posting strong growth before Clinton-Gore took office. That may sound like old hat, but the President's budget plans never once mentioned a balanced budget as a policy goal at that time. Instead, those budget plans predicted annual deficits of $200 billion a year well into the future. As my colleagues and good friends Senator Domenici, Senator Gramm, and others pointed out last night, the credit for our booming economy ought to be given to a couple of people. Specifically, one is Dr. Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, for a sound fiscal policy that prevented the onset of inflation. As we know, Greenspan has been around a long time. Further, a Republican Congress deserves some credit for putting controls on Federal spending and turning the deficit into a surplus. I will not spend a lot of time today on that subject because I rise to talk about energy. I want to talk about the reality that the administration has no energy policy. The energy policy in this country, for what it is worth, is dictated by America's environmental community. They accept no responsibility for the reality that we are short of energy and becoming more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil. As we look at our economic prosperity over the past few years, there is a growing concern that it might be coming to an end, partially for lack of a sound national energy policy. Look at the American consumers out there. They are finding themselves under the shadow, if you will, of a failed energy policy. We have crude oil prices which are remaining solidly at $30 plus a barrel but, remember, it was March of 1999 when it was $10 a barrel. The administration blames ``Big Oil.'' They use the word ``profiteering.'' Well, is the implication then, in March of 1999, that ``Big Oil'' was giving us a gift of some kind, selling it to us at $10 a barrel or was it supply and demand? Who sets the price of oil? Is it Exxon? Is it British Petroleum? Is it Phillips? It certainly is not. We all know that. It is from where we import the oil. It is Saudi Arabia. It is Venezuela. It is Mexico. They are setting the price of oil. Why? Because we are approximately 58 percent dependent on imported oil. We are addicted to oil. We don't produce enough, so we pay the going price. If we don't pay it, somebody else will. Why has it gone up? The general economy of the world has gone up; Japan has recovered; Asia, more demand. We are a society that runs on energy. All our communications, our expansion, our e-mail, computers, all are dependent on energy. So American consumers are finding themselves in the shadow of a failed energy policy, with crude oil prices at $30 plus a barrel--they have been up as high as $37 a barrel--and gasoline prices averaging well above $1.50 a gallon for most of the year. In some areas, they have gone up to nearly $2 a gallon. The sleeper here is natural gas. Americans haven't awakened yet to the reality that natural gas prices have more than doubled. Ten months ago, they were at $2.16 per thousand cubic feet of gas. Deliveries in November of this year, just beginning tomorrow, were at one time in the area of $5.30 to $5.40. I would remind my colleagues that 50 percent of the homes in this country heat on natural gas. U.S. consumers have dealt with electricity price spikes and supply disruptions. All you have to do is go to San Diego, California; you will get a flavor for what is happening. You can't get a permit to put in a new generating plant. Consumers are facing brownouts as a consequence and prices are going up. People are closing their businesses. They cannot pay, in many cases, the rates that are being charged in that particular area of California. Heating oil inventories--which we are concerned about, particularly in the Northeast, where there is such dependence on heating oil--are at the lowest level in decades. In fact, when the President proposed the sale of SPR--30 million barrels from the SPR reserve in Louisiana--and then initiated an action to order the transfer of that crude oil into refineries, we suddenly found that we had another problem--we didn't have refining capacity; they were operating at about 96-percent capacity. We took this additional oil out of SPR and we found out we could not refine it without displacing other imported oil. This was testimony in the House and Senate. In the hearing I chaired as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, testimony indicated there would be, out of the 30 million barrels, about 3 to 5 million barrels of distillate. We asked the Under Secretary of Energy: How much heating oil are you going to get out of 3 to 5 million barrels of distillate? Frankly, he didn't know. There was another hearing going on in the House, and witnesses from the same Department of Energy indicated there would be approximately 250,000 barrels. A 1-day supply of heating oil in the Northeast is about a million barrels. So it is somewhere between a half day's supply and 2 to 3 days' supply. This was all a result of the falderal associated with the release of the SPR. The objective of the SPR release was to increase the heating oil supply in the Northeast Corridor. Did it occur? It clearly did not. Was there manipulation of price? To some extent. It was $37 and it dropped down to $33, or thereabouts, on that announcement. But it clearly didn't increase the supply of heating oil, and that was the objective. Currently, I am told the price of crude oil is $33.75 a barrel, but let's remember from where we started--$37 per barrel. The nice thing about what the OPEC nations have done is they have gradually assimilated a price increase so it doesn't hurt so bad. Remember, it was $10 a year ago. Then it got up to $17, $18, $19, and then up to $22. At $22, OPEC advised us they were going to put in a floor and a ceiling. The ceiling was $28; the floor was $22. That worked so well they moved it up beyond $28. Now they are in the low thirties. Well, the sky is the limit. The point is that the administration has no energy policy. Now, how long has it been going on? We point fingers here, and it is easy to do, particularly in a political season. But we really don't have a strategy. We need a strategy because the cost of increasing energy, the shortage of energy, and the increased dependence on imports is a compromise of our national security. Moving from national security back to the economy, economists now believe the increased energy prices could very well lead to a slowdown in consumer spending. Consumers are likely to cut back in other areas to offset the higher prices they are paying for gasoline, electricity, home heating oil, or natural gas. Recently, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan indicated rising energy costs would push up the cost of consumer goods. Why? Delivery costs are associated with movement of these goods to market. We are seeing that as a reality. Wholesale prices, in September, increased nine-tenths of 1 percent, led mainly by a 3.7-percent increase in energy costs. Where I come from that is called inflation. You don't need an economic degree to see it; the math is simple. Higher natural gas prices, plus higher oil prices, plus higher gasoline and fuel oil prices, plus higher electric prices, equals renewed increasing inflation. We haven't poked that tiger in the ribs for a long time, but we are poking him now and he is waiting. Somebody called him a ``sleeping dragon'' who has been sitting around for the better part of a decade. As we poke him in the ribs with higher energy prices, we are going to face reality, which is an impact on the economy both here and in countries around the world. A significant number of Fortune 500 companies have reported third quarter earnings under expectations, largely due to the increased energy costs. Have you taken an airplane ride lately? You can't figure out the fares, whether you fly Saturday before 2 o'clock or Thursday after 5 o'clock; but there is a surcharge included in your fare. If you want a Washington, DC, taxi, there is a surcharge. There is a sticker in the cab that says the fares are up 50 cents or so because of the cost of gas. Every business is facing these costs. Fuel costs put the brakes on truckers' profits. Furniture manufacturers have cut earnings projections. We have seen truckers come into Washington and drive trucks across the lawn, and they were talking about the high price of diesel fuel. They say high gas prices are restraining shoppers from buying furniture and other big-ticket items. Well, many analysts predict high oil prices could reduce U.S. economic growth by as much as 2 percent this year. What does that mean? Over the next five years, that would mean a loss in the GDP of about $165 billion a year, and about 5.5 million fewer jobs. We face an increasing balance of payments from our ever-increasing reliance on foreign oil. That is a balance of payments deficit. Our trade deficit hit an all-time record in July of this year, pushed by the cost of imported oil. One-third of our trade deficit is the cost of imported oil. We also face the prospect of, frankly, an unreliable electric supply, weakening the backbone of the new economy. Most people don't realize that high tech means high electric usage, more computers, more e-mail, more taxes. From where will it come? Add these together and you have the makings of an economic slowdown, meltdown--call it what you like. The economic engine, which is responsible for the incredible prosperity of the past decade, can begin to slow down and is beginning to slow down. Nobody really wants to face up to that because times have been good, but everything changes and nothing stands still. What has been the response of the administration? Well, the administration, of course, wants to take credit for the economic growth of the past few years, but they try to duck the responsibility for the impending energy crisis that threatens to bring this period of prosperity to an end. The administration has consistently restricted our energy supply and forced higher energy prices on consumers. They have specifically opposed domestic oil exploration and production. We have 17 percent less domestic oil production--less production--since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office. We have had 136,000 oil and 57,000 gas wells close in this country since 1992. We have tremendous coal reserves in this country, but the administration is opposed to the use of that coal. We haven't built a new coal fired plant since the mid-1990s. EPA permits make it absolutely uneconomic. You can't get permits. The nuclear industry, which is about 20 percent of the power generated in this country, is choking on its own waste. We are one vote short in this body of overriding a Presidential veto. Every Member who voted against it should remember that. You have a responsibility. If you don't get your electric power from nuclear, from where are you going to get it? You better have an answer because when constituents have a brownout, they are going to ask why. There is a court of appeals liability case associated with the nuclear industry where the court said that the Federal Government made a contractual commitment to take the waste in 1998. The Federal Government chose to ignore that liability to the taxpayers of somewhere in the area of $40 billion to $80 billion. Nobody bats an eye here. What is the sanctity of a contract? I know it means something to the occupant of the chair and to me. The court said the Government should keep its word, but the Government simply ignores it. Somebody else is going to have to take care of it on another watch. They also threaten to tear down hydroelectric dams out West. There is a tradeoff. Tear down those dams, and we don't have navigation on those rivers. Where do we put the barge traffic? We put the traffic back on the highways. What is the implication of that? You can move an awful lot of material on barges. If you move that same material on highways, you are going to create traffic problems, pollution problems, and so forth. We ignored electric reliability and supply concerns with the brownouts in San Diego. We have had no new generation of transmission facilities, yet the consumer market has grown. The Vice President has said he will even go further to restrict new oil and gas exploration and production. In Rye, NH, on October 21, 1999, Vice President Gore made the following statement: I will make sure that there is no new oil leasing off the coast of California and Florida and then I will go much further. I will do everything in my power to make sure that there is no new drilling off these sensitive areas, even in areas already leased by previous administrations. That doesn't sound very good, when most of our oil is coming from the Gulf of Mexico. On energy, there is a clear distinction between the two sides. The difference between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush could not be more clear. The Bush proposal is $7.1 billion over 10 years; the Gore proposal is 10 times that amount, some $80 to $125 billion. The Vice President has said he has an energy plan that focuses not only on increasing the supply but also working on the consumption side. The facts show the Vice President doesn't necessarily practice what he preaches. The Vice President wants to raise prices and limit supply of fossil energy which makes up over 80 percent of our energy needs. By discouraging domestic production, the Clinton-Gore administration has forced us to be more dependent on foreign oil, placing our Nation's security at risk. All we have to do is witness the growing influence of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the Middle East as a result of our increasing dependence on foreign oil. How can we be an honest broker in the Middle East peace process when we are beholden to Israel's sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein, to keep our citizens warm this winter? We currently import 600,000 barrels a day from Iraq. The Vice President's only answer is to give solar, wind, and biomass energy technologies that are not widely available or affordable. We have expended $6 billion in a combination of grants and subsidies for alternative energy. I am all for these alternative energies, but they still consist of less than 4 percent of our energy. It is incomprehensible to me that we would fail to recognize that we have to rely on our conventional sources--oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear. The Vice President seems to have forgotten these basic sources of energy. As a matter of fact, we need a mix of all of the above. In contrast, Governor Bush would put together a comprehensive energy policy for America that uses the fuels of today to get the technologies of tomorrow. The energy policy would contain three major components: First, increased domestic production of oil and natural gas to meet today's consumer demands for energy; second, increased use of alternative fuels and renewable energy to help us transition into the technologies of tomorrow; third, improve energy efficiency to save American consumers money and reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Governor Bush would encourage new domestic oil and gas exploration right here at home. He has said: The only way to become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil is to explore here at home. Just opening the ANWR Coastal Plain in my State increases domestic production capability by better than a million barrels a day, more than twice the amount we currently import from Iraq. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that was in the Christian Science Monitor on October 18 of this year. They did a poll on the issue of whether or not ANWR should be open.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, with the President contemplating a visit to North Korea, I think it is fair to question the logic of that kind of a decision at this time. This historic meeting, if it does take place between the two leaders, could have significant implications for North and South Korea. I will explain a little bit more. The leader of North Korea has hinted at plans to cease missile testing. He has indicated a proposed halt to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and North Korea's hermit-like isolation. I have had the opportunity to visit North Korea. I was one of the first Members of this body about 5 years ago to fly in an Air Force plane to North Korea, the first Air Force plane to fly there since 1943. It was an extraordinary lesson in a country that is probably as backward as any nation on Earth. In any event, it is fair to say our Secretary of State, in completing a series of historic meetings with the North Korean leaders in Pyongyang, has set the stage pretty much for a Presidential visit. The concern I have associated with the development of a rapport between North and South Korea, I wonder just what the benefit of a U.S. intervention could be at this time. Still, while improving relations certainly is a cause for optimism, I do not think it is really time to celebrate. North Korea has a horrendous record. For over 50 years, it has been a living embodiment, if you will, of George Orwell's nightmarish visions. The original Big Brother, Kim Il-Song, has been replaced by his son. A legacy of terror and aggression pervades in that country. Recent efforts to recast North Korea's leader Kim Chong-il as a likable fellow strikes me as little out of character. Here is a man whose regime has for years been at the top of America's terrorist watch list. There is no question he assassinated South Korean officials in Burma several years ago. They fired missiles across Japanese territory not long ago and actively sought to develop nuclear capability. It has been a regime whose policy has resulted in mass starvation of its people, that diverts food and resources of the neediest to feed and house the few who live in splendor, and develop, obviously, their weapons capability. This is a man who utters an offhand remark suggesting that North Korea could be convinced to halt its missile program, and the administration seems to hail him as showing ``a willingness to undertake reform.'' I guess I am not quite ready to buy that yet. I think that is a naive approach. I am a little more skeptical. At every turn, North Korea's concessions have turned out to be false promises made strictly to blackmail U.S. and South Korea into giving direct economic assistance to the bankrupt North. I wonder why we are so eager to believe that North Korea's apparent concessions now are anything other than a pretext. Like my colleagues, I certainly applaud South Korea's President Kim Dae-jung's sunshine diplomacy efforts to reduce North-South tensions. His efforts have been admirable. I think the Koreans should be taking the lead themselves in rebuilding the trust between the two nations. Only through that direct effort by the two sides, free of outside interference, can tensions truly be resolved. As a consequence, I worry that the administration's bull-in-the- China-shop-like interjection of itself into the dialog threatens to dictate, perhaps overwhelm, the delicate process of trust building. Already we have seen North Korea delay fulfillment of its commitments to South Korea because it ``was too busy'' preparing for Secretary Albright's visit. This suggests to me that the North might shift attention to relations with the U.S. and away from South Korea and have the effect of undermining attempts at a true accord between North and South. I understand President Clinton is anxious for a foreign policy accomplishment in light of the difficulties in the Mideast. He certainly worked toward resolution. It is unfortunate that has not happened. In any event, the question of peaceful and secure relations with North Korea would be a valuable legacy, but I question the direct involvement in the process and whether or not that shifting away from the South Korean dialog with the North to the intervention of the U.S. may be harmful at this time. Not only would efforts to reach a speedy agreement with North Korea be premature, in my opinion, it would seem to reward the North for 50 years of aggression as thanks for 6 months of sunshine. Both the prospects for peace and the President's legacy would be best served if he were to stay, I believe, on the sidelines and allow the U.S.-North Korean relations to proceed as they have been, with caution and balance. I urge the President to put diplomacy ahead of legacy and not spend the final days of his administration interposing the U.S. between the two Koreas.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the purpose of my reference is that I happen to be chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee which historically has had jurisdiction over Outer Continental Shelf activities. I was one of the major drafters of this legislation, along with Representative Don Young in the House of Representatives. In moving this legislation through yesterday morning, we found a significant change had been made in the legislation and that the jurisdiction had been moved from the Energy Committee to Commerce and taken from Interior and transferred over to the Secretary of Commerce. I know this cannot be seen, but there are handwritten notations at the end that simply say: ``11(a) the term 'Secretary' means Secretary of Commerce.'' There are extraordinary things done in late times around here. This was done at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning the day before yesterday, and no one can identify who did it. But the bill was filed, the order has been made, and there is absolutely nothing we can do other than question the authenticity of someone who would simply change the legislation, not initial it, have no identification. I have checked with the Appropriations Committee. I have checked with the Members of the House involved. Nobody owns up to changing the designation of the CARA bill from the Energy Committee in the Department of Interior over to the Commerce Committee and the Secretary of Commerce. The bill has been filed. As a consequence, the question is, What can we do about it? The President may veto the legislation. We may have another opportunity. On the other hand, we did have a colloquy by Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, Senator Byrd, Senator Stevens, and myself. I think it addresses the reality that the best thing we can do is get out of here. I know the Presiding Officer would agree. But as we look at what we are coming back to tomorrow, a single vote on a continuing resolution for 1 day--and another one on Sunday--it seems to be an effort in futility. But in any event, Mr. President, I thank you for being patient, and particularly the staff, as well, who probably had hoped this Senator would not show up when he walked in the door.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record page 19 of the specific legislation authorizing the CARA legislation, which establishes a program affecting the Outer Continental Shelf revenue stream.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, Mr. President, I agree. This legislation does not overturn the State of Mississippi's reservation of its mineral rights. The deed asserts ownership, and this legislation does nothing to discredit such deed. I thank Senator Cochran and Senator Lott for their sponsorship of this legislation that will preserve Cat Island and add the last piece of the Mississippi Sound Barrier Islands to the Gulf Islands National Seashore. It is an important addition and one that will be treasured for years to come. Amendment No. 4351 to S. 2638

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have a question about a last minute change in language of the appropriations measure establishing a Coastal Impact Assistance program as section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Coastal Impact Assistance program, with relatively few changes, is identical to language referred to and reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as part of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000, commonly referred to as CARA. The last minute change I am concerned about places the Secretary of Commerce in charge of the Coastal Impact Assistance program rather than the Secretary of the Interior. Both the House of Representatives, when it passed CARA, and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, when it reported CARA to the Senate, placed responsibility for Coastal Impact Assistance with the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior has the overall responsibility under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for the leasing program that creates the impact on our coastal communities that Coastal Impact assistance seeks to address and is also the source of revenues to fund not only such assistance but also various conservation programs that were included under CARA. I do not understand why the change was made, but I want to make certain that the change has no effect on the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources over the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and especially exclusive jurisdiction over the Coastal Impact Assistance program established under section 31 of that act.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is late. We have had pretty candid discussions on various issues before us. It is a political season. There is a lot of finger pointing, whether we talk about Social Security, Medicare, or the benefits of care associated with drug plans. I think we all share a common commitment to try to have meaningful legislation come out of the process. We simply have different points of view. You heard the Senator from Florida comment extensively on the Republican plan to strengthen Medicare. I am not here to comment on the Republican plan on Medicare, although I think it is quite defensible. But I am here to talk about the Democratic plan for an energy policy. You will notice, unlike the Senator from Florida, that I don't have a chart to show you what the Democratic energy plan is for the simple reason that there isn't any. This administration has absolutely no energy plan as evidenced by the dilemma that we face in this country as we watch our imports from the Mideast climb to approximately 58 percent. Fifty-eight percent of the oil that we consume in this country is imported. We have seen a dramatic increase in the price of gasoline. Gasoline is in the area of $1.75 cents to $1.80, depending on the grade. We have seen heating oil in the country raised to approximately $1.56. Here in Washington alone, it has increased 56 cents a gallon in less than 10 months. We have seen natural gas on which 50 percent of the homes in this country are dependent increase from $2.16 for 1,000 cubic feet to deliveries in November at $5.40 per 1,000 cubic feet. We have a situation with our refining industry in which we haven't built a new refinery in this country in decades. We have shut down 30- some refineries. We find ourselves at loggerheads because of our inability to refine, if you will, enough of the blends to address the Northeast heating oil shortage. It is fair to say that we don't have a defined energy policy. We have an energy policy that seems to be driven by environmental groups that do not accept the responsibility for realism. Realism dictates that we are not going to move out of here tomorrow or the next day on hot air. We are going to move out on kerosene. Kerosene comes from oil. Kerosene is what you put in the jet airplane. I don't attempt to be oversimplistic, but what we continue to need in this country is a balance of all the energy resources. The Middle East last week gave us another reminder as to our crisis. That is the fear that we are going to be held hostage to foreign oil imports. I have been coming to this floor for many days now warning of how our dependence on foreign oil threatens the national security of this Nation. I certainly don't take any pride at this late hour in coming here and saying I told you so. We know the Middle East is a tinderbox. Some of our most impassioned enemies are already lighting fires there. What little energy policy this administration has in the sense of increasing reliance on foreign oil has come in conflict, in my opinion, with our foreign policy. How can we pretend to play the role of an ally to Israel or even an honest broker when we are now beholden to Israel's sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein, of Iraq? Now we are looking to Saddam Hussein to keep our citizens from freezing this winter. We are importing about 750,000 barrels of oil a day from Saddam Hussein. Many people forget we fought a war over there in 1991 and 1992. We lost 147 American lives. Today, the real wild card is in Iraq and the Middle East. I mentioned my previous concern over Saddam Hussein and the leverage he brings, but some analysts estimate that oil will increase to $40 to $45 a barrel if Iraq halts oil sales or reduces oil sales. The significance of that is the position that Saddam Hussein and Iraq currently hold. Iraq, we know, has threatened to stop oil exports if the U.N. doesn't convert Iraqi dollars held by the U.N. to Euro dollars for trading. We know Iraqi exports have dropped a little bit, by about 500,000 barrels a day just last week. It is not clear whether this is the start of an ominous trend. Even if supply disruptions do not occur, world oil markets are stretched so thin that even the possibility of a disruption could raise prices even more. And it did so last week. Currently, I think oil closed today around $34 a barrel. We have seen a high on two occasions of $37 within the last month or so. But the reality is that Saddam Hussein controls about almost 2.8 million barrels a day of daily exports, and that is more than the available excess capacity worldwide. What I am saying is that the difference between the world's ability to produce oil and the world's consumption is a little over a million barrels--there is a little over a million-barrel capacity--but Saddam Hussein controls 2.8 million. My point is if Saddam Hussein reduces his sales, then we are in an even tighter position and as a consequence we can expect the price to go up. And Saddam Hussein is aware of this. There is no question about his actions of late. He has become more aggressive in recent months. It is rather interesting to note, after every speech, he concludes it with ``Death to Israel.'' If there is ever a threat to Israel's security, it comes from Iraq. He has a $14,000 bounty on each American plane shot down. Thank God there haven't been any. But we have flown over 200,000 individual flights over Iraq, enforcing the no-fly zone, an area of blockade since the 1990s. Last month, Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi oil. Here we go again. He did this shortly before invading Kuwait in 1990. Last week, nearly 15,000 Iraqi Republican Guard troops moved westward in a show of force, obviously toward Israel. Just yesterday, Saddam Hussein said: Jihad, holy war, is the only way to liberate Palestine. How quickly we forget. Let me remind everyone, before President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, we carried out Desert Storm and 147 Americans were killed, 467 were wounded, and 23 were taken prisoner. We continue to enforce the no-fly zone. The cost to the taxpayers is about $50 million per month. It is still going on. Yet the administration seems to want to rely more on Iraqi oil. We have had in this country a 17-percent decline in domestic production, yet the demand has increased 14 percent. In August of last year, we consumed more oil in this country than ever before. What is the rationale? We are traveling more. The economy is growing. We are an electronic society. We need more energy. Where does it come from? It doesn't come from thin air. Now 58 percent of our oil comes from overseas. Some people perhaps remember 1973 when we had the Arab oil embargo. We had lines around the block. People were indignant. They were mad. They were outraged. We couldn't get gasoline at the gas station. At that time, we were 36-percent dependent on imported oil and we created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Here we are today with Iraq, the fastest growing source of U.S. foreign oil, 750,000 barrels a day, nearly 50 percent of all Iraqi exports. I don't want to be oversimplistic, but we buy Saddam Hussein's oil, put it in our airplanes, and go over and bomb him. Is that a sensible, responsible foreign policy? In a few words, that is what is happening. You can interpret it however you desire. This administration's inattention to maintaining the U.N. conditions against Iraq has left the sanctions in a shambles. We aren't doing any weapons inspections in Iraq; increased Iraqi flights across Saudi airspace in the no-fly zone continue; his development of missile, missile delivery systems, and biological warfare capabilities continues. Russia and France have openly challenged our sanctions. Turkey sends flights to Baghdad despite the U.N. ban. It is simply not working. Our friends in Jordan are demanding the end to inspections of Iraqi imports through Jordanian ports. Saddam Hussein is about to get a free pass to import anything he wishes despite the U.N. sanctions. Does anyone doubt he will be able to import what he needs to continue his weapons of mass destruction? We are going to have to deal with this one of these days. Let me say again what little energy policy we seem to have is a reliance on imported oil, and it has certainly come into conflict with our foreign policy, with potentially disastrous consequences for American consumers and our national security. I am pleased to say that George W. Bush, and our Vice President nominee, Mr. Cheney, have spoken about how to decrease our dependence on imported oil by developing some of the reserves that we have here at home, open up the overthrust belt--Wyoming, Colorado, Utah--areas where we have great potential, areas where the administration has closed up to 64 percent of the public land, exempting that area from development, and my State of Alaska, where the administration refuses to allow an opening of the area which might have the largest reserves known to exist in North America, that small sliver of ANWR. There are a lot of misunderstandings about the area of Alaska known as ANWR. It is 19 million acres, the size of the State of South Carolina. Congress, wisely, has taken out of that 19 million acres, 8.5 million acres and put it in permanent wilderness. They have taken another 9 million acres and put it into a refuge, leaving 1.5 million acres for a decision to be made whether to open it. The geologists tell us there might be as much as 16 billion barrels of oil there. That would equal what we import from Saudi Arabia for a 30-year period. It is a very significant amount. Some people say that is a 200-day supply. That is totally unrealistic because that assumes there would be no other oil produced anywhere in the world. Obviously the Russians, the Venezuelans, and the others would produce. So as we look at potential energy sources here at home, I think we have to look to the advanced technology that we have been able to develop in this country and the record of opening up areas in the Arctic such as Prudhoe Bay, where we find a contribution of nearly 20 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country. That has come about over a period of 23 years. The significance of that speaks for itself. You might not like oil fields, but Prudhoe Bay is the best in the world. We could have the same potential by opening up that small sliver of the Arctic known as the 1002 area. The interesting thing is that industry tells us, out of 1.5 million acres, we would probably utilize as little as 2,000 acres--not much bigger than a medium-sized farm--to open up the area. I was rather interested in looking at the Christian Science Monitor the other day. They did a poll across America on what the attitude would be of opening ANWR. The poll was 58 to 34 in favor. That is a rather startling result, and I think it surprised some of the folks at the newspaper as well. The point is, charity does begin at home. There are those on the other side who simply blame big oil. I remind them, where was big oil when they were handing out oil a year ago at $10 a barrel? Big oil in this country--Exxon, British Petroleum, Chevron, Texaco--does not set the price of oil. Do you know why? Because we are so dependent on imports. Saudi Arabia, OPEC, Mexico, Venezuela--they are the suppliers. They are supplying us with 58 percent. They set the price. We are addicted; we pay it; and that is the consequence of becoming so dependent when, indeed, we have the technology in this country to open up some of these frontiers safely. We have, in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, an unused capacity of a million barrels a day. As a consequence, the development of that portion of ANWR could be done very easily, and it could be done very quickly. If we had the conviction of our commitments to simply make a statement that that is our intention, there is no question in the mind of this Senator we would see oil drop $10 a barrel. We saw the President's action the other day when he pulled 30 million barrels out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The price dropped from $37 a barrel to somewhere in the area of $32 a barrel. Let me conclude with a little evaluation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the actions, or should I say the ``mis-actions'' of the administration handling them. As we know, when the Vice President made a recommendation to the President that we sell 30 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the price was nearly $37 a barrel, prices which last month prompted the administration, of course, to release this oil from SPR. Now word comes from the Department of Energy that initially only 7 million barrels of that original 30 million barrels would have to go up for rebid. It is kind of interesting because they waived the normal bid requirements. They didn't require normal financial responsibility. They said they would do that later. Three of the bidders could not meet the demands, and as a consequence they had to bid it again. But they recognized their mistake the next time because they did require the bidders meet financial capability for performance. In any event, according to the Department of Energy's own analysis, 20 million of the 30 million barrels will simply displace foreign oil imports. The reason for that is our refineries are running at 96- percent capacity. They cannot, basically, take any more oil. They can only get so much out through this process because we have not built new refineries in 10 years. We have simply increased some of our larger refineries. We have also lost about 37 refineries in the last decade. It is not a very attractive business to be in. In any event, the Department of Energy has decided that out of the 30 million barrels, there are probably going to be only 10 million barrels that are going to be refined into finished product. Currently, U.S. refinery yields are about 8 percent heating oil and 92 percent other products, whether it be gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and so forth. So if we do the math, while the Department of Energy suggests 3 million to 5 million barrels of heating oil will result from the SPR release, we find that the testimony from those representing the Department of Energy uses the terminology ``distillates.'' What are distillates? They would lead you to believe this was heating oil and would benefit the Northeast, but it is not. We found out that current refinery yields of 10 million barrels of SPR oil will yield only 800,000 barrels of heating oil. That is less than a 1-day supply. When you look at the intent of the administration's effort to open up the SPR, it was to increase the heating oil supply availability in the Northeast, a portion of the country that does not have the availability of natural gas. Their objective was not achieved. They have less than a 1-day supply out of this sale. How ironic. What they did is they did manipulate the price because the price did drop, but the supply did not increase. If the administration's intent was to get more heating oil to the market, that certainly was not the way to do it. They could have explored thoroughly the offer by the Venezuelan state oil company to produce heating oil for direct delivery to the United States or they could have made a greater effort to convince companies to voluntarily reduce exports, refine product until stocks were at a more comfortable level. Again, I refer you to the objective. The objective was not met. Manipulation of the price was. But I do not think this was the real reason for the SPR release. As I have indicated, the real reason was to manipulate the price. They had some success. Prices did dip down to $31 a barrel. But we have seen that erased, with prices back up to $34 a barrel. Heating oil stocks in the Northeast have actually declined. They have declined 600,000 barrels since the administration came up with the idea of releasing the SPR crude oil, which has to be refined and, incidentally, is not going to be made available until November. One of the more interesting things they left out of the sale was no prohibition against exporting the SPR oil, so many of the profiteers in oil simply bid the oil in with the idea of exporting it. There was no ban on exports and there was no ban on heating oil. The market in Europe is higher than the U.S. Some traders will simply refine that crude oil, turn it into heating oil, and export it to Europe because they had no prohibition in their bid. The administration's logic was flawed when it announced this, and it seems to have only gotten worse. The bottom line is, rather than increase domestic production of oil and gas to ensure our energy security, again the administration falls back to its reliance on foreign oil imports, posing significant threat to our national security, undermining our foreign policy in the Mideast, and the administration's strategy is also to try to manipulate prices when necessary by releasing oil from SPR. We need a real energy policy, such as that proposed by one of the candidates for President, Governor Bush; one that ensures a clean, affordable, secure energy supply for American consumers, one that increases domestic production of oil and gas. Why should we be exploring in the rain forests of Colombia where there are no environmental considerations? Instead, we should be using our technology to develop the frontier areas in the overthrust belt in my State of Alaska. We need to expand the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy, which is part of the Bush-Cheney plan, and we need improved energy efficiency for all kinds of energy uses. I am pleased to say that is a position Governor Bush supports as well. The emphasis of this administration has been on natural gas. The only problem is there has been a tremendous increase in the price of natural gas. Natural gas was $2.16, as I said, 10 months ago. It is $5.40 per delivery per thousand cubic feet. The emphasis, particularly from our utility industry, is that they have nowhere to turn for a source of energy other than natural gas. There has not been a new coal-fired plant built in this country since the mid-1990s. We have no new hydrodams. In fact, the administration is supporting taking out hydrodams in the West. There has been a collapse of our nuclear program. We cannot address the nuclear waste issue. We have not built a new reactor in 15 to 20 years and none are on the horizon. As a consequence, we need to go back to our energy policy and bring a balance. Bring in nuclear. Obviously, it contributes to the quality of our air. Look at hydro, which we can safely develop. Look at clean coal. We have the technology to do it. We can recognize that 50 percent of the homes dependent on natural gas are going to be subject to some substantial price increases if we do not develop more energy at home. As a consequence, what we need here is a balanced energy policy. The administration's energy policy is that there simply is not any.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business. I apologize for the lateness of the hour.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I rise today to congratulate my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, on the passage of S. 2508, the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000. This important Indian water rights settlement would never have gotten as far as it has in the Senate without the hard work and dilligence of Senator Campbell. As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I know how difficult it is to reach consensus on Indian water rights settlements. It takes a great deal of knowledge, dedication and downright hard work to get these kinds of bills through committee and onto the Senate floor and while the work can be frustrating, the rewards of a job well done are the appreciation of the Tribe and the water users. Senator Campbell should reap those rewards. This settlement has been a long time coming and I hope the House of Representatives will look favorably on the hard work that has been done here and pass this bill expeditiously so that it will make it to the White House and be signed into law. My only regret is that this bill has taken so long to pass the Senate. Fulfilling this commitment to the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes and the Colorado water users never should have taken this long. The settlement agreement was signed in 1986 and now--finally--after 15 years of foot dragging and outright obstruction by outside groups, a bill to implement the agreement passes the Senate. The history of this unfulfilled promise is not a good one. For the past 15 years, numerous, and duplicative studies have been required, each of which resulted in substantial reductions in water to be diverted and stored in the Animas-La Plata project. The tribes, in order to get a project, have agreed to substantial modification of their rights under the 1986 agreement and 1988 Settlement Act to make this proposal work. The cost of the project has been cut by almost two thirds, yet opponents of the project are still unhappy. I wonder what would make them happy-- complete and total derogation of the Federal Government's obligation to the tribes? I know Senator Campbell would not let that happen and I would certainly support him in his efforts. This bill, as passed today, represents the best hope for the United States to do right by the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes at this point and I am pleased to vote for it. I again congratulate Senator Campbell.