Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from West Virginia. I sympathize with the exposure that his State has. Of course, my State, unfortunately, is not connected to the rest of the United States by rail. We have a State-owned railroad and would like to have the opportunity to have a railroad connection. I am sympathetic to his cause. Energy Crisis

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it is important to note the situation escalating in the Mideast as a consequence of the tensions. It is unfortunate it would be at a time when we had hoped there would be an effort to get a firm peace agreement. As a consequence of that, I think it is important to bring to the attention of my colleagues a reality relative to the release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the recommendation of Vice President Gore to our President. As you know, the President did release 30 million barrels of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This was the largest single release of crude oil from SPR in the 25-year history of the reserve. The administration has claimed this has been a successful effort because the price of oil has dropped. Notwithstanding that, using SPR to manipulate prices is contrary to the law because we have not reauthorized SPR, and of course the success of this is determined in the long term, not the short term. But I wish to bring to the attention of each and every Member some facts. Since the President made his announcement, there has been no new heating oil placed into the market and no measurable rise in inventories. It may surprise some of you, particularly those in the Northeast, to know that American consumers may, under the current arrangement, never see any of the product refined from the crude oil that we released from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Let me explain why because this is important. In the arrangement, there was absolutely no requirement that those who successfully bid on crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve needed to refine it into heating oil. They may decide to make gasoline or some other product. Second, there is absolutely nothing that prevents this product from being shipped to foreign markets, either in its crude form or as a refined product such as heating oil. Guess what. That is just what is happening. We are shipping heating oil to Europe. Look at the Wall Street Journal this morning. Let me quote: Europe's market for heating oil is 50 percent bigger than the U.S. heating oil market. Europe's stocks are even tighter and prices there are a few cents a gallon higher, so U.S. refiners have renewed incentive to ship heating oil across the Atlantic. . . . U.S. exports of heating oil to Europe have ballooned nearly six times, in the first 7 months of this year. . . . That tells the story of the arrangement that the administration made to take the oil out of SPR and increase our heating oil supply. What has happened with it is it is going to Europe. I am not surprised by this, in the sense of the market going to the highest price where it can generate a return. But I am astonished about the claim of the administration and those who support the movement of SPR, and the release, that it was done because of concerns over supply for the benefit of the American consumer. The American consumer has not benefited. This is a spin being put on by the pundits. I asked the Secretary of Energy pointblank at a hearing last week: Is it possible as a result of oil being released from SPR that prices could fall but no new heating oil would find its way into the U.S. heating market? Do you know what the answer was? It could happen. The irony is that we are going to release oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide product to a European market. That should not be lost on the American consumer or Members of this body. Finally, SPR was created for one specific purpose: as a reserve in case our supply, our dependence on OPEC and other countries, is disrupted. We are 58-percent dependent on imported oil. We have a situation in the Mideast. Iraq is claiming Kuwait is stealing its oil, the same claim it made prior to the Persian Gulf war. Kuwait is now claiming Iraq stole oil during the gulf war. The entire Israeli- Palestinian peace process appears, unfortunately, to have fallen apart. All this leads to a reminder that we should not use our petroleum reserve for political purposes, and that appears to be what we have done in this arrangement. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a consequence of the focus on energy between our two Presidential candidates, it is very appropriate that we identify differences. The Vice President has said he has an energy plan that focuses not only on increasing the supply but also on working on the consumption side, but the real facts are the Vice President does not practice what he preaches. Let's look at the record over the last 7\1/2\ years. The administration has opposed domestic oil exploration and production. We have had 17 percent less production since Clinton-Gore took office, and the facts are it decreased the number of oil wells from 136,000 and the number of gas wells has decreased by 57,000. These are wells that have actually been closed since 1992. There has been absolutely no utilization of American coal in coal-fired electric generating plants. We have not built a new plant since 1990. The difficulty is the Environmental Protection Agency has made it so uneconomic that the industry simply cannot get the permits. We force the nuclear energy to choke on its own waste. We were one vote short in the Senate to pass a veto override. Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals has given the industry a liability case in the Court of Claims, with a liability to the taxpayers of somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion. The administration threatens to tear down hydroelectric dams out West. What are we going to do there? We are going to take the traffic off the rivers and put it on the highways. We have ignored electric reliability and supply concerns. Go out to California, particularly San Diego, where they have seen price spikes and brownouts, no new generation, no new transmission. This has happened on the Vice President's watch. Natural gas prices in the last 10 months have gone from $2.60 to $5.40 for delivery. That is the problem we are facing, and that is the record under this administration. Let's not forget one more thing. The Vice President talks about cutting taxes. The Vice President himself cast the vote in 1993 to raise the gas tax 4.3 cents a gallon. He did not just cast the vote; he broke the tie, and that is the significance of the record with regard to a contribution to increase domestic energy in this country. Instead of doing something to increase domestic oil supply, the Vice President and the administration would rather blame big oil profiteering, and that is ironic. Where was big oil a year ago when oil was selling for $10 a barrel? Who was profiteering then, Mr. President?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the Chair to advise me when I have 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Who sets the price of oil? OPEC. I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of our time for Senator Stevens, who wants to claim that time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have been asked to announce today that the Senate will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 110, the continuing resolution. Under the order, the time until 10 a.m. will be equally divided with a vote scheduled to occur at 10 a.m. Following the vote, the Senate is expected to resume debate on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, the Interior appropriations bill. Cloture was filed on the conference report and it is hoped an agreement can be reached to have the cloture vote during today's session. The Senate may also begin consideration of any other conference reports available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont would like to make a very special introduction. It will be my intention then to speak, and take the time of Senator Stevens, leaving him about 5 minutes remaining on our side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to congratulate an exceptional elementary school principal, Mr. Karl Schleich of Wasilla, Alaska. He is the 2000 recipient of the National Distinguished Principals Award for Alaska. The National Distinguished Principals Program (NDP) was established in 1984 as an annual event to honor elementary and middle school principals who set the pace, character, and quality of the education children receive during their early school years. The program is jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). It calls attention to the fundamental importance of the school principal in achieving educational excellence for pre-kindergarten through eighth grade students. Mr. Schleich's reputation for getting things done was established in southeast Alaska when, in his first position as an educational leader, he oversaw the creation of a grade 6-8 middle school in a former grade 7-12 building and then founded a regional association to support others making similar transitions. As an assistant principal, he helped model a middle school program that received statewide and national attention. In his role as principal at Snowshoe Elementary School, he has boosted school improvement efforts, developed and trained staff in schoolwide assessments of writing, reading comprehension, and early literacy skills, as well as portfolios of children's work. Karl Schleich is commended by his colleagues for his uncommon interpersonal skills and energy that he has demonstrated in his 12 years as a principal. Our Nation's future depends on today's educators. Currently, 40 percent of America's 4th graders read below the basic level on national reading tests. On international tests, the nation's 12th graders rank last in Advanced Physics compared with students in 18 other countries. And one-third of all incoming college freshmen must enroll in a remedial reading, writing, or mathematics class before taking regular courses. This country is in need of more devoted and talented educators. I commend Mr. Schleich for his hard work and dedication to our children. He is educating those who will lead this country in creating, developing, and putting to work new ideas and technology.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Senator Bingaman and I have worked in a bipartisan manner on this legislation. I am sure Senator Bingaman would want to express his views. I encourage him to avail himself of that opportunity. It is my understanding that the administration supports the triggering mechanism in our bill as opposed to the one in the House bill specifically, and, as a consequence, we have worked toward an effort to try to reach an accord. We are certainly under the impression on this side that we worked this out satisfactorily to the administration. But objections may be raised. Senators are entitled to make objections, but I hope they are directed at issues that clearly address environmental improvements. I have nothing more to say other than this legislation is needed. We have a crisis in energy, and we had best get on with it. Otherwise, I think the problem is going to suffer the exposures, particularly since we won't have authorization. I thank the Senator. I see the Senator from California, who may be able to shed some light on this.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would hope that my colleagues who have raised an objection to the Senate taking up this legislation would reconsider. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is the reauthorization of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Senator Bingaman, who is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and myself, as chairman, have worked closely to come together with this compromise legislation. We have worked with the administration. It is my understanding that the administration supports this legislation, and for good reason: Because the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, initially passed in 1975, deals with issues at hand, issues that are affecting the energy supply in this country, issues that are affecting the price of energy in this country; and issues that the administration has mandated pass the Congress of the United States, specifically, this body because these issues deal with the domestic oil supply and conservation and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the International Energy Program, or IEP, as the agreement stands. Certain authorities for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, and U.S. participation in the International Energy Program expired in March of this year. The legislation before us would extend these authorizations through September 30, 2003. I think it is rather ironic that we are out of compliance in the sense of having both these significant issues expire at a time when we have an energy crisis and we have not acted upon them. I would like to point out several facts about the legislation before us and the need for that legislation. We have seen a lot of publicity given to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the emphasis put on the significance of that as kind of a savings account for oil in case we have an interruption from our supply from overseas, a supply which currently is about 58 percent of our total consumption. Title I of EPCA provided for the creation of SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and set forth the method and circumstances for its drawdown and distribution in the event of a severe energy supply interruption or to fulfill U.S. obligations under the IEP agreement. The SPR currently contains approximately 570 million barrels of oil and has a total capacity of about 700 million barrels, with a daily drawdown capacity of about 4.1 million barrels per day. At its peak, the SPR contained 592 million barrels of oil. Currently, the SPR contains about 570 million barrels of oil, so there has been a drawdown. We have seen the action by the President in transferring 30 million barrels out of the SPR to be turned into heating oil. It is rather interesting to note that the formula doesn't necessarily relate to 30 million barrels of heating oil. We will actually get somewhere between 4 and 5 million barrels of heating oil out of 30 million barrels of crude oil, about a 2- to 3-day supply. As a consequence of the President's action, there is a legitimate question of whether the President had the authority to transfer that oil out of the SPR since the authorization for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve expired March 30 of this year. In any event, there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be authorized, regardless of individual attitudes on the appropriateness of drawing the SPR down. It was created in response to the difficulties faced in 1973, when we experienced the Arab oil embargo. Many of us remember that time. We were outraged. We had gasoline lines around the block and the public was indignant. They blamed everybody--the Government. How could it happen in the United States that we had run out of gasoline? The concept was simple. At that time, most of us believed America should not be held hostage again to Mideast oil cartels and that this would act as our protection against cutting off our supplies. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a situation today where our domestic policies have led us to being held hostage by another tyrant. That tyrant in the Mideast is one Saddam Hussein. Clearly, we are becoming more and more dependent on Saddam Hussein. Currently, 750,000 barrels a day of Saddam Hussein's oil come to the United States. It is even more significant that Saddam Hussein has taken a pivotal role in the oil issue worldwide, because the difference between production capacity and consumption is a little over 1 million barrels a day. In other words, we are producing a little over 1 million barrels more than we can consume, but that is the maximum production. Out of that, Saddam Hussein is contributing almost 3 million barrels a day. So you can see the leverage that Saddam Hussein has. He has already threatened to cut production. He went to the U.N., when they asked for specific programs for repayment of damages associated with his invasion of Kuwait. He said: If you make me do this now, what I am going to do is simply put off any further plans to increase production, and I very well may reduce production. You can see the leverage he has if he reduces production. What is the world going to do? The price is going to go up, and they are going to pay the price. So what we have seen today is the reality that the world is consuming just slightly less oil than we are producing. Because of this, we have not been able to build up our supply of inventory against any unexpected supply interruption, which very well could occur. The Mideast is still an area of crisis and controversy. Here we are, as we approach the fourth quarter of the year, and we have the difference between supply and demand, the knowledge that it is going to tighten even further, and this leads, as I have indicated, to a volatile worldwide oil market. It is troubling in the United States because we have allowed ourselves to become 58-percent dependent on imported oil, and this has grown dramatically in the past few years. What disturbs me most is the fact that we have become even more dependent on Iraq. As a consequence, it is fair to recognize that with Saddam Hussein now calling the shots in the world energy markets and the United States allowing him to do so, we have basically put in danger the security of Israel. Make no mistake about it. Every speech he concludes, he concludes with: Death to Israel. It is kind of ironic. Maybe I am oversimplifying our foreign policy, but it seems as though we buy his oil, put it in our airplanes and go over and bomb him. We have had flown over 200,000 sorties since the Persian Gulf war, where we go over and enforce what amounts to an air blockade. As a consequence, we are in a situation where we are supplying the cash-flow for his Republican Guard as well as the development of his missile and delivery capability and his biological capability. This is a mistake. Because of this, it is imperative that we continue to place the focus of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on a defensive weapon against severe supply interruptions and that we do not use it as an offensive weapon to manipulate market forces. We have debated that issue on the floor before. I think this bill achieves a balance. What we have in this bill is very important because many Members are from the Northeast, and this bill covers heating oil reserves. The legislation contains language authorizing the Secretary of Energy to create a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast. Several points about this: First, I have personal concerns about the establishment of such a reserve. A reserve could actually act as a disincentive to marketers to keep adequate supplies of oil on hand for fear that the price could drop out of their market at any time. That is a possibility, with the Government going into competition. A government-operated reserve of 2 million barrels could actually tie up storage capacity that private marketers would fill and deplete usually four or five times a season. The reserve could create an unworkable, rather elaborate regulatory program used to implement it. Second, I was most concerned about the trigger mechanism included in the House language that seemingly gave the Secretary total discretionary authority to release oil from the reserve. I believe we have addressed the majority of the problems associated with the creation of such a reserve by clarifying the trigger mechanism. The mechanism we have in this bill allows the Secretary to make a recommendation for release if there is a severe supply interruption. This is deemed to occur if, one, the price differential between crude oil, as reflected in an industry daily publication such as Platt's Oilgram Price Report or Oil Daily, and No. 2 heating oil, as reported in the Energy Information Administration's retail price data for the Northeast, increases by more than 60 percent over its 5-year rolling average; and second, the price differential continues to increase during the most recent week for which price information is available. We have this mechanism in this legislation, and it has been agreed to by virtually every Member of this body. As to EPCA reauthorization, the bill extends the general authority for EPCA through September 30, 2003. On the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the authorities for SPR are extended through September 30, 2003. It strengthens the defense aspects of SPR by requiring the Secretary of Defense to affirm that a drawdown would not have a negative impact on national security. That was an important provision Senator Bingaman and I negotiated. We also have stripper well relief, the small stripper wells that we are so dependent on that were threatened the last time we had a price downturn. The amendment retains the provision contained in the House bill that would give the Secretary of Energy discretion to purchase oil from marginal--that is 15 barrels of production daily or less--wells when the market price drops below $15. Otherwise, these wells will be lost. The cost of production to get them back up is such that they would never go on line again. This would give some certainty to these producers that we really value, the strippers, as the true strategic petroleum reserve, and an operational one, in this country. This provision would hopefully offset the loss of some 600,000 b/d of lost production that occurred because of the dramatic price decrease in 1999. This amendment also allows the Secretary to fill the SPR with oil bought at below average prices. We have weatherization. It strengthens the DOE Weatherization program by expanding the eligibility for the program and increases the per- dwelling assistance level. The Summer Fill and Fuel Program authorizes a summer fill and fuel budgeting program. The program will be a state-led education and outreach effort to encourage consumers to take actions to avoid seasonal price increases and minimize heating fuel shortages--such as filling tanks in the summer. The Federal Lands Survey directs the Secretary of Interior, in conjunction with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, to undertake a national inventory of the onshore oil and gas reserves in this country and the impediments to developing these resources. This will enable us to get a better handle on our domestic resources and the reasons why they are not being developed. The DOE Arctic Energy Office establishes within the Department of Energy an Office of Arctic Energy. Most of the energy in North America is coming from above the Arctic Circle. The office will promote research, development, and deployment of energy technologies in the Arctic. This provision is critical as the Arctic areas of this country have provided for as much as 20% of our domestic petroleum resources--have more than 36 TCF of proven reserves of gas, and an abundance of coal, as we look at future energy needs of this country. It might surprise members to know that the Department of Energy employs no personnel in Alaska! There is a 5 megawatt exemption that allows the State of Alaska to assume the licensing and regulatory authority over hydro projects less than 5 megawatts. This will expedite the process and cost of getting this clean source of energy in wider use in Alaska. The Senate has already passed this provision. The justification is that there is no way a small community, a small village, can put in a small hydrobelt wheel on a stream that has no anadromous fish and generate power to replace dependence on high-cost diesel, much of which is flown in, and still meet the requirement of the FERC, which licenses these small operations. And, as a consequence, we have not been able to utilize them in many of the areas to replace the high cost of diesel. We have royalty-in-kind. This provision allows the Secretary of the Interior more administrative flexibility to increase revenues from the government's oil and gas royalty-in-kind program. Under current law, the government has the option of taking its royalty share either as a portion of production, usually one-eighth or one-sixth, or its equivalent in cash. Recent experience with MMS's royalty-in-kind pilot program has shown that the government can increase the value of its royalty oil and gas by consolidation and bulk sales. Under royalty-in-kind, the government controls and markets its oil without relying on its lessees to act as its agent. This eliminates a number of issues that have resulted in litigation in recent years and allows the government to focus more directly on adding value to its oil and gas. Finally, the FERC relicensing study requires FERC to immediately undertake a review of policies, procedures, and regulations for the licensing of hydroelectric projects to determine how to reduce the cost and time of obtaining a license. I remind colleagues that this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that has been developed between Senator Bingaman and myself on the Energy Committee. It has been cleared, as I understand it, by our side unanimously. It is my understanding that there still remains objection on the other side, although we have had assurances that we are willing to work and try to address the concerns of those on the other side who have chosen to place a hold on this legislation. In view of the heightened emotions associated with our energy crisis in this country, this is very responsible legislation that is needed and is supported by the administration. It is timely, and it is certainly overdue in view of the fact that we are down to the last few days of this session. I hope we can come to grips with meeting the obligation we have to pass the Energy Policy and Conservation Act out of this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my understanding is that the leader requested unanimous consent to bring up the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, referred to as EPCA, and there was objection raised. I wonder if the----

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the majority leader attempted to get a unanimous consent on the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. That bill was objected to?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, like millions of Americans last night, I watched the Presidential debate with a great deal of interest. It was one of the more memorable debates in recent history for a number of reasons. First, of course, as a Republican, I was very proud of the job that Governor Bush did. It is probably fair to say that he was matched against a very experienced debater, Vice President Gore, but I think the Governor held his own in many respects. From the broad issues of prescription drugs to Medicare, education to energy, Governor Bush very clearly laid out what the choice is for the American people in this election. Governor Bush engaged the issues. They were not dodged. The Governor was clear in laying out the goals and objectives he would propose in his administration, if he were elected President. I was particularly pleased with the debate because it focused on energy, which is one of the crucial issues facing the American people today and has probably received the least publicity. Obviously, in the areas of education, prescription drugs, health, and Social Security, we are all trying to build a better structure, a long lasting structure, and also address what to do with the surplus. But the issue on energy is quite clear. We have a crisis in this country. It has developed over a period of the last 7\1/2\ years. It has not been addressed by the current administration. I am very pleased that we have, in the energy area, a distinct separation on the issues between the candidates, and the American public can clearly understand and, as a consequence, view the merits of each proposal. The Vice President said, in regard to a question on energy policy, and I quote: I am for doing something on the supply side and the consumption side. I have no doubt that that is the case, but I point out in the past 8 years we haven't had any indication of specifically what the Vice President would do on these issues. As a consequence, I think he is headed in the wrong direction, and the American public are becoming more and more aware. What we have seen happen is the emergence of an issue that in many respects our friends on the other side of the aisle hope will go away or not become a major issue prior to the election. With the increasing rise in crude oil--10 days ago it was up to an all-time high in 10 years of $37; it dropped down with the SPR release; now it is coming up again--the American public is becoming aware of how crucial not our dependence on imported oil necessarily is but the general concern that we have sacrificed our traditional areas of dependence on energy, whether it be coal, nuclear, or hydro, for a policy that has been fostered by this administration that directs everything towards utilization of natural gas. As a consequence, we have seen the price of natural gas rise from $2.16 per thousand cubic feet 10 months ago to better than $5.00 in the last quotes that have come out within the last couple weeks. We have seen a tremendous increase in the dependence on natural gas at the expense of all our other energy sources. This has occurred over an 8-year period of time. During that time, Clinton-Gore have to stand accountable for what they have done. On the supply side, the Vice President has done something. It is a situation that the supplies have decreased 18 percent and on the consumption side, consumption has increased 14 percent. In spite of our efforts for conservation, in spite of our efforts in alternative energy, we have a decreased supply and an increased consumption. I was astonished when the Vice President said in his response to a question on energy policy, and again I quote: We need to get serious about this energy crisis in the Congress and in the White House. Where has he been for the last 7\1/2\ years? While I don't agree with him in terms of Congress not being serious, I was glad to see they finally admitted it was not an issue taken seriously in the White House for the past 7\1/2\ years. That was certainly the implication. We have had statements from our Secretary of Energy relative to the fact that the administration was caught napping with regard to energy prices, as we have seen the price of oil go from $10 a barrel a year ago to $37 within the last few weeks. Now, I think, while it didn't come up in the debate last night specifically, there was a generalization to blame big oil. Well, who is big oil, Mr. President? Who sets the price of oil? We had a hearing before the Energy and Natural Resource Committee, which I chair. It was rather interesting because the Secretary of Energy did acknowledge that it is OPEC, the supplier, setting the price of oil. We are 58-percent dependent on OPEC. Who is OPEC? The Mideast countries that have the excess capacity, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and moving down to Central America is Venezuela, and then we also have Mexico. They have the supply; we have the appetite. They set the price. So to blame big oil for profiteering, or to make the implication of profiteering, is totally unrealistic and a bit irresponsible, in my opinion. There is no mention, of course, in general terms of the assumption that perhaps our oil industry was simply benevolent when they were selling at $10 a barrel a little more than a year ago. They are not so benevolent now because, obviously, they don't set the price. It is a supply and demand issue. When the Vice President said we needed to get serious about the energy crisis, I think it is apparent that there has been a lack of attention during this in the administration, because Congress has acted. Specifically, Congress passed legislation granting deep water royalty relief. Congress passed legislation to help our domestic oil and gas industry through tax incentives, which they vetoed. Congress passed legislation that would handle the country's nuclear waste, which they vetoed. Congress passed legislation to open up the Coastal Plain of ANWR--that sliver in the Arctic--to responsible development, which they vetoed. That was 6 years ago. Had they passed that legislation, we would know what is there. We could have another strategic petroleum reserve, and we don't know that. We would be a long way into the development stages if indeed the oil were there. I venture to say, Mr. President, if we made a commitment to proceed with the Arctic oil reserve, you would see a dramatic drop in the price of oil. One of the other interesting things the Vice President brought up was the implication that we hadn't done anything, or not enough, with renewables. In the last 5 years under the Republican Congress, expenditures for renewables have been $1.5 billion in new spending and $4.5 billion in various tax incentives. So Congress anteed up about $4.6 billion total for that purpose. The difficulty is that we simply don't have the technology to replace our oil dependence with coal, natural gas, and hydrogen. Let's not be fooled. It is not just around the corner. The Vice President said last night he is a big clean coal fan. Well, what does that really mean? You would assume he would support the development of coal-fired generating plants in this country. There hasn't been a new one built in years. The administration's budget over the last 5 years has proposed to rescind or defer more than $1.4 billion in clean coal technology. Those are the facts. How can you be all things to all people? Well, Vice President Gore implies he is pretty good at that. Let's talk a little bit about the facts because part of the issue that came up on energy was the disposition of the Coastal Plain in Alaska, the State I represent. I know something about it. I have been to the coastal plain many, many times. I think once again we saw the Vice President in trouble with the facts. This is what he said regarding the Arctic Coastal Plain, and I quote: I think that is the wrong choice. It would only give us a few months' worth of oil, and oil would not start flowing for years into the future. Well, the facts are, according to the Department of Energy--the Clinton- Gore Department of Energy--this area could be the largest field ever discovered in North America--possibly 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If that high estimate of oil is found, it could produce over 20 percent of our current domestic production levels for the next 20 years. If the high estimate is found, it would be larger than Prudhoe Bay, which has been doing just that--producing 20 to 25 percent of our oil for almost the last 25 years. I am not surprised that Vice President Gore has a problem with the facts on this issue. One need only read his official position on why he wants to ``protect the Arctic Coastal Plain'' to see that he is terribly misinformed. He says, ``The wildlife refuge's Coastal Plain-- where drilling would occur--is home to polar bears, grizzlies and black bear, Dall sheep, wolves and moose.'' I know something about this area. I assure you there are no black bears and no Dall sheep in the Coastal Plain. Dall sheep are a mountainous species, and perhaps some Members in this body would have you believe otherwise, but there are no mountains in the Coastal Plains. It is very flat for miles and miles and miles. What did Governor Bush say? Well, Governor Bush said it is better to produce energy here at home, where we can do it in an environmentally sound manner than to continue relying on imported sources of energy. I particularly agree that it is better that we explore at home, using our technology and environmental sensitivity, and do it right, rather than going over to the rain forests in Colombia, where there are no environmental constraints and they would ship it into this country on foreign tankers, which have the exposure to an accident off our shores by companies that don't have the deep pockets associated with the tragic accident that occurred in my State. Nevertheless, it seems as if this administration would continue to rely on the likes of Saddam Hussein for our energy security. That is about where we are. I am going to conclude my presentation this morning on one segment of our energy policy that needs clarification. It is an issue that the environmental community has perpetrated on our American citizens; that is, that there is something extraordinarily unique, and there is something that, by its implication, suggests that we cannot explore and, if we find hydrocarbons, develop them safely. That is the argument over ANWR--or, as we refer to it, the Coastal Plain--a small portion of the area which is proposed to be opened for exploration and can only be done by the Congress of the United States. Before I go into it, I think the public should be aware of another fact that has come up. You will recall the other day the Vice President recommended to the President that we release crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, about 30 million barrels. That 30 million barrels was estimated to be a supply of heating oil, after it was refined, that would equal about a 3-day supply. I think it was about 3 or 4 million barrels of heating oil we would get out of that release. I think it is also interesting to recognize that in the wintertime we consume about 4 million barrels of distillate--including heating oil a day. What I can't understand is the reality that we are exporting heating oil--heating oil that ordinarily you would assume would be going into inventories to meet the anticipated winter demand for heating oil in the Northeast Corridor. More than 117,000 barrels per day of distillate, as I understand it, are being shipped over to Europe and other places. If the President has the power--which he certainly and evidently has taken--to remove oil from the SPR, why would he not prohibit the export of any heating oil refined from that oil? It is diesel that is going overseas currently. It doesn't make sense. I will have more information specifically, but they seem to have overlooked this in their euphoria to get the word out that indeed they are doing something positive about the shortage in the Northeast Corridor for heating oil, and the fact we are allowing a refined product to go to Europe is unconscionable and certainly goes against the argument that we needed to release oil from SPR. Let me get into my presentation this morning because I want to try to communicate what this issue is about--ANWR, what are the facts and what is the fix. Hopefully, we can address that this morning since this issue has been brought up in the Presidential debates and clearly is attracting the attention of the American people, many of whom simply don't have an appreciation because they have never been there. My State of Alaska is a pretty big piece of real estate. It is one- fifth the size of the lower United States. If you overlay Alaska over the entire lower United States, it will range from Canada to Mexico and Florida to California over to the Aleutian Islands 1,000 miles out to the west. This little portion up here of our State is called the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--perhaps inaccurately named because not all of it is a refuge nor all of it a wildlife area. There is an area that was carved out by Congress in 1980. In their wisdom, Congress took this area, which is 19 million acres--the size of the State of South Carolina--and said let's make a wilderness out of part of it and a wildlife refuge out of the other part. They took 8.5 million acres and made a wilderness in perpetuity; it is not going to be changed. They made another 9 million acres into what we call a refuge. But they left this area called the Coastal Plain, or the 1002 area, out of any permanent land designation until Congress made its determination as to its status. During this time, there were certain activities with regard to oil and gas exploration, and it was suggested that there might be a significant reserve in this general area. As you know, Prudhoe Bay is here--not too far away. That is where we have been producing about 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country. We built an 800-mile pipeline down to Valdez where the oil flows and moves down to the west coast of the United States. This infrastructure is already there. There was a construction project of about $7.5 billion to $8 billion, the largest construction project ever built in North America. It was designed to handle a little better than 2 million barrels of crude oil a day. Currently it is handling a little over 1 million barrels a day. So there is an unused capacity in existence there for over 1 million barrels a day. It would require no further adjustment of any kind. The idea here is, should we allow exploration in this area and put it up for Federal leases? If we do, can we do it safely? Of course, the proposal in Governor Bush's energy presentation is to take the revenue of some $3 billion anticipated from Federal leases as well as the federal royalty share and put that back into conservation issues, renewable energy technologies, home heating, and weatherization programs; in other words, take the revenue and try to do something positive for people to lower costs associated with high energy costs. That is a significant step that suggests we can use the revenue which the private sector will pay and do something very positive with it, and address, if you will, environmental issues that need regeneration in other parts of the country with this revenue. The whole question, of course, is the status of this area and whether Congress is going to see fit to open it up. I am going to go through the arguments because I think they really mandate an understanding so that there can be an appreciation of the merits of this. The first argument that is used in the fictional sense is the assumption that 95 percent of this area is already open to oil development. Here is the area we are talking about. Only a part of the 1,500 mile Arctic Coastline is left open for possible development. Only 14 percent of the whole 1,500-mile Coastal Plain in Alaska is open to oil exploration today--not 95 percent but 14 percent. Here is the area. This is closed. This area is open. Some of this happens to be State lands. And, except for a small part of the coastline, the coastline of the national petroleum reserve is closed clear over to Point Hope. To suggest that 95 percent of the area is already open is totally inaccurate. I will certainly look forward to a spirited debate on this subject if somebody wants to take me up on it, including members of the environmental groups. We also have 8 million acres of ANWR, as I have indicated, in a permanent wilderness. Another 9.5 million acres is classified as refuge; that is, 95 percent of the entire range is closed to exploration and oil development. It is closed. Using modern technology--there is the point I want to highlight--the indications are that we would need only 2,000 acres out of the 19 million acres to develop the proposed oil fields that are believed to exist in the ANWR Coastal Plain. That is a pretty small footprint when you consider this ANWR area is about the size of the State of South Carolina. We are talking about a 2,000-acre footprint, if given the opportunity. That is about one-tenth of 1 percent of the 1.5 million acres, the 1002 area, and only 1 and one-hundredth percent of the entire 19-million acre ANWR area. These are the misconceptions that have been forced on the American people relative to the significance of what development could take place, how small the footprint is, and how large overall the area is, and little attention has been given to the infrastructure that is already there. I also remind people that this is not an untouched area. There is a distant early warning radar site there. There is a Native village of Kaktovik right in the middle of it where nearly 300 Eskimo people make their living and pursue a subsistence lifestyle. It is interesting to note that about 70 percent of the people in the village support opening the area because they want to have an opportunity for an alternative standard of living and lifestyle: Should they choose to foster just subsistence, or should they pursue opportunities for jobs. Another fiction is that opening up the Coastal Plain would destroy the biological part of the wildlife refuge. That really sounds good. But let's look at it for a minute. The Coastal Plain can be opened to development without harm to the wildlife and the environment. Even the Eskimo inhabitants of Kaktovik who depend on subsistence hunting and fishing to eke out their living in the far north are convinced that oil development can be done safely, because of the safeguards, without harm to their land and the wildlife on which they depend for their heritage. Under legislation I have proposed, No drilling or development activities would be allowed during the caribou calving season. Limits would be placed on exploration, development, and related activities to avoid impacts on fish and wildlife. Initial exploration efforts would be limited to a time between November and May--the Arctic winter--to guarantee that there would be no impact from exploration, pipelines, or roads on the caribou. Let's look at some descriptive charts that give you an idea about the success of developing this area from what we have learned in Prudhoe Bay. Here is the Prudhoe Bay area. These are not mannequins, these are real caribou. They are wandering around, and nobody is disturbing them. You cannot take a gun. There is no shooting allowed. There is no taking of game in the entire oil fields. These animals are very adjustable as long as they are not harassed. Clearly they are not harassed. There is a picture of the caribou herd that happens to be going through Prudhoe Bay area. The same thing is true with regard to other wildlife. This is the pipeline going to Prudhoe Bay. You can see the Arctic tundra over here. It is a pretty time. It is a wintertime picture. There are three bears here. It is kind of comical because the bears are walking on the pipeline. Why? Because it is easier to walk on the pipeline than to walk in the snow. They are as smart as the average bears around here. In any case, it is a little warmer too. To suggest that somehow these animals are going to be fenced out because of some activity just isn't supported by any burden of proof. We are trying to give some factual, real-life issues associated with development in the Arctic and what steps we take to protect the environment and ensure we are not going to have difficulties associated with the wildlife. I also want to show you a little effort by our Canadian friends on this side when they begin to initiate an aggressive oil and gas exploration program in the Arctic. This is the boundary between Canada and Alaska. This is the Northwest Territory. We see various villages. The dots represent oil wells that have been drilled for exploration purposes. Here is the village of Old Crow, just on the Canadian side of the Alaska-Canadian border. My point is to show the extent of drilling on the Canadian side in the search of oil and gas. Unfortunately, they didn't find any oil and gas. This is also the route of the porcupine caribou herd. They move through the range and traverse the area. Incidentally, they cross a highway, the Dempster Highway. The Canadian Government, when they found there was no oil, decided to make it a park. As a consequence, it is a park today; that is fine. But to suggest that somehow this activity would have some effect on the migration pattern certainly proves it didn't have much of an effect, and the highway and the caribou traversing it did not have an effect on the herds. In the proposals we have for development in Alaska, the technology today is very different. This photograph gives an idea of the development of an oil well in Alaska today. There are no roads, no gravel. This is an ice road. That is the technology used. They build up the ice and use it as a road. This is a well. You can see the Arctic Ocean. It is a pretty tough area. It has its own uniqueness, its own beauty, but is a very hostile environment. When exploration activity is completed, this is the picture we have during the short summer. It is the same area. There is no despoiling of the tundra. This represents the technology that is available today. The Coastal Plain has been declared America's last wilderness. It is not wilderness. However, an awful lot of our State is wilderness. We have 56 million acres of wilderness. The point is we protect the wilderness. We can protect these areas. In our State less than 1 percent of the entire State, 365 million acres, is in private ownership and available for development. We have 192 million acres of parks, preserves, conservation system units. As I have said, there are 56 million acres of wilderness, 61 percent of all American wilderness. How much is enough? I am not here to debate. Wilderness in Alaska already covers an area equal to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Maryland. Further in the Coastal Plain lies this village of Eskimo people. This picture demonstrates what it is like to take a walk on the North Slope in the wintertime. There are a couple of kids in the village walking down the street. It is blowing snow. Aren't these kids entitled to a different lifestyle, should they wish? The answer clearly is yes. When they say there has been nothing in this area, they are misleading. It is inaccurate. This is the wilderness, this is the refuge, this is what Congress is debating, and this is where the oil is likely to occur in the footprint of 2,000 acres. Some suggest it is only a 90-day, or a 200-day supply of oil. Prudhoe Bay was estimated to produce 9 billion barrels. It has produced over 12 billion barrels today. It is still producing over a million barrels a day. When we look at potential production, we are looking at the potential of 16 billion barrels. When we talk about a 200-day supply, we assume there will not be any oil produced from any other source. It is a fictional argument. I have talked about the caribou, but I want to show again the significance of this with regard to Prudhoe Bay. This picture is a different herd than exists in the ANWR area. This is the central arctic herd. There is no indication that an environmentally responsible exploration will harm the porcupine caribou which, I might add, is 129,000 now. As a matter of fact, we have about three times as many caribou in our State as we have people--not that that is anything significant, but it is a fact. We have had 26 years in Prudhoe Bay of protecting these animals. The central herd has grown from 3,000 animals in 1978 to 19,700 today. That is a fact. These arguments suggesting somehow we will decimate the wildlife simply is not based on any accurate information. It is an emotional argument. This is one of the travesties that has been taking place-- exploiting the American public to suggest we cannot open this area safely. Why has the environmental community pursued this? It generates membership. It generates dollars, gives them a cause, and it is so far away people cannot see for themselves. I can't say how many ``experts'' in this body have opinions but have never been there. Their material is written by the Wilderness Society. It is written by the Sierra Club. Caribou will flourish in ANWR as they have throughout Alaska. In these areas, no hunting will be allowed by anyone other than a Native. We have heard a good deal from the Gwich'in group, the group of Natives on the Canadian and the Alaskan side. The suggestion is this will destroy their culture. Nothing will prevent the caribou herd from passing close to the Gwich'in villages. That is where they yearly hunt, when they come through. They will continue to have the availability of the caribou for their subsistence. Strict controls are planned to prevent disruption of the caribou herds during the summer calving. The caribou calve in the northern area, but they calve, depending on weather schedules, snowfall, bugs, and predators--sometimes they calve on the Canadian side; sometimes they calve on the Alaskan side. The point is, the Gwich'in group that is dependent will be protected as a consequence of ensuring that there is no activity on the Arctic Slope during the time of the migration. That can be simply asserted by regulations, and we have agreed to do that. It is interesting to note that the Gwich'in group, 15 years ago, issued a request for a proposal to lease their own land, about 1.7 million acres for oil development. Maybe the oil companies should have bought. Unfortunately, there wasn't any oil. As a consequence, the leases were not taken up. Now the Gwich'ins are entitled to change their mind, and that is what they have done. The truth is, they are funded by the Wilderness Society. They are funded by the Sierra Club. We have tried time and time again to encourage some of the Gwich'ins to go from their traditional area and go to Point Barrow and see what the Eskimos think of resource development associated with oil and gas. I recall one of my friends took a group up. He is an Eskimo from Barrow. He said he used to go to school to keep warm. But before he did, he had to go to the beach to pick up driftwood that flowed down the river--no trees, but driftwood, to keep warm. He says: We have an alternative lifestyle now. We have a choice. We can take a job. We have educational opportunities. They are able to provide a full 4-year college scholarship to any member of their community who wants to go. They can do that because they have revenues associated with their Barrow's taxing base on the oil pipeline. So it has brought about an alternative in lifestyle and a choice that people previously did not have. These people are entitled to the same things to which you and I are entitled, if they so choose. So when you look at these kids, look at whether or not they want to continue to rely on the subsistence economy, following game, or whether they want an opportunity to have a college education and come back, maybe, as a doctor or nurse or whatever. They are given this opportunity through activities associated with creating the tax base of their communities. Should they not be heard as well? I was amused at the inconsistencies associated with the environmental community. The Audubon Society currently holds leases in the Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Preserve in Louisiana. They hold oil leases. They generate revenue. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is an inconsistency they do not care to acknowledge or admit. If it is OK for the Audubon Society to have revenues from oil in a preserve, the Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Preserve in Louisiana, why shouldn't the Natives of my State have the same opportunity for their own land? It seems to me there is certainly justification. There is another myth: Canada has protected their wildlife; we should do the same. We went through that. The Canadians finally created a national park, but they did so only after extensive exploration failed. The Canadians drilled 89 exploration wells on their side with no success. They also extended the Dempster Highway, cutting across the center of the Porcupine caribou herds' route. Another fiction we hear all the time: Oil exploration would destroy polar bear habitat. Doesn't that sound terrific? The reality is polar bears den on the Arctic ice pack, not on land. The administration has positively identified only 15 polar bear dens on the entire Coastal Plain for an 11-year period; that is one or two dens a year. We have a healthy population of polar bears, estimated at about 2,000. The reason is we do not shoot them. You can go to Canada and take a polar bear for a trophy. You can go to Russia. You can't do it in the United States. The only people who can take polar bear are the Native people for subsistence. The environmentalists don't tell you that. However, they do tell you Prudhoe Bay has been littered with chemical and oil spills, the Arctic having been despoiled by three or four-- whatever figure they want to use. But the figure that is accurate is 17,000 spills since 1970. That is the accurate figure. How can you have those spills with such a pristine environment? The fact is, as a consequence of the environmental oversight and requirements, every spill of any material--even if it is fresh water--has to be reported; any spill that is how you get 17,000 spills. For example, in 1993 there were 160 spills involving 60,000 gallons. Before you jump to conclusions, only 2 spills involved oil. Roughly 9.5 gallons of oil were spilled from a leaky valve. Any oil and chemical spills have almost always been confined to frozen gravel pads where they are easily cleaned up. Moving more than 1 million barrels of oil a day, everyday, from the ground, through the pipe and onto ships--9.5 gallons of oil spilled. I think that is a remarkable record. Prudhoe Bay is the finest oil field in the world bar none. We send kids up from Anchorage and Fairbanks to pick up the few papers that happen to blow around. It is a summer job. Another fiction: Producing more oil would simply cause Americans to buy more gas-guzzling cars and defeat conservation efforts. America does need to be more energy efficient. It does need to develop more alternative fuels. Even with increased energy efficiency and conservation, our energy demands are forecast to increase 30 percent by the year 2010. By then, America will be producing just 5.2 million barrels of oil per day. We will be forced to import 65 percent of our oil needs. This certainly poses a threat to our national security. We would need 30 giant foreign-flagged supertankers a day, more than 10,000 a year, coming into our ports to import the oil we need. That creates much more environmental risk than developing our own resources where we have the tough environmental requirements. The vast majority of Americans oppose disturbing the Alaska Arctic National Refuge--that is what the environmentalists would have you believe. Americans strongly support responsible development when they know the facts about it. That is what I have attempted to do today. I encourage my colleagues to give me an opportunity to debate them if they want to challenge these facts. A poll taken by the Gordon S. Black Corp. said 56 percent of Americans support ANWR leasing; 37 percent oppose; 74 percent of Americans support efforts to produce domestic oil and natural gas. That is what Governor Bush proposed last night-- producing more oil here at home and not being dependent on imports. Certainly, most Alaskans support ANWR. The entire congressional delegation, the Democratic Governor, 78 percent of the residents of Kaktovik, this little village, support it. Some say what are we doing exporting from Alaska? We don't export oil from Alaska. There was some exported when we had surplus oil on the west coast of the United States. That has not occurred for several months. Finally, they suggest we are a wealthy State, we don't need ANWR. That is a ridiculous argument. We have, in Alaska, the highest cost of living in the nation. We have billions of dollars of unmet infrastructure needs like sanitation for our village's health needs. We have no roads across most of Alaska. We have, probably, the most fragile economy of any State in the Union. We have always depended on resource industries, but our timber industry has been shut down by this administration. We have lost our jobs in Ketchikan and Sitka, our only two year-round manufacturing plants. Our oil and gas jobs are down. The worst thing is we have had 32,000 young Alaskans leave Alaska since 1992 as a consequence of not having opportunities for these people within our State because we are dependent on developing resources and the Federal Government controls the landmass in our State. I hope as we continually debate the issues before us as we enter this Presidential campaign, and the issue of energy comes to the forefront, as it should, as a distinct issue between the two candidates, we will have a better understanding of the merits of opening up this area of the Arctic for the relief that is needed in this country today. I predict if this administration would commit to opening up this area for oil and gas leasing, you would see a drop in the price of oil overnight. As a consequence, the belief that America meant business when it said we were going to relieve our dependence on imported oil would mean we would not be subject to the whims of the individual who controls, if you will, the difference between the world's capacity to produce and the world's current demand--which is about 1.5 million barrels with supply being a little over the demand. That one person is Saddam Hussein, in Iraq, who is currently producing almost 3 million barrels a day. The fear is he will cut production. If he cuts production, we will see oil prices go from $37 to probably $60 a barrel. That, coupled with the instability associated with the current spokesperson from OPEC, from Venezuela, who has made certain suggestions that clearly the object of OPEC in Venezuela is to protect the interests of the small countries of the world at the expense of the large consumers of hydrocarbons, means we have a very unstable situation. I hope the American people have a better understanding of what has happened in the last 8 years as this current administration has abandoned the traditional dependence on many sources of energy--oil, natural gas, hydrocarbons associated with our coal industry, our nuclear industry and our hydroelectric industry--and clearly focused the future on our energy supply of natural gas. As a consequence, we have seen what has happened with natural gas. Demand has gone up, and we are in a situation now where other countries are dictating conditions under which we have to pay the price they charge or go without. It is strictly supply and demand. It has been coming for a long time, and the Clinton-Gore administration bears the responsibility for not having a responsible energy policy. That is why I am so pleased to see Governor Bush come forward and acknowledge what has to be done, and among those issues is more domestic production. The fact he has stated the belief that we can open up this area safely I think deserves full examination and explanation to the American public. That is what I have attempted to do today. I thank my colleague for the opportunity to speak in morning business. I see the floor leader, Senator Gorton, is on the floor. I believe the pending business is the Interior appropriations bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I gather that the minority whip would like equal time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, what is the allotted time for morning business today?N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2001, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $393 per year or $197 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $4.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, the Interior appropriations bill. It is hoped that all debate and a vote on the conference report can be completed by midafternoon. Following the disposition of the Interior appropriations legislation, the Senate may begin consideration of any other conference report available for action or the continuing resolution which continues Government funding through October 14. I encourage those Senators with statements regarding the Interior appropriations conference report to come to the floor as soon as possible during today's session. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I believe Senator Schumer has asked to be recognized upon the conclusion of my remarks. I also believe Senator Gorton, who will be managing the Interior appropriations bill, is expected to come over and may ask to interrupt the presentation at that time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am not sure what my time is. I would like to be allotted enough time to complete my presentation. I imagine it would be within that general timeframe. I will try to get to the point because I know there are other Members who want to be heard this morning.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be very short. I imagine I will be 10, 12 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent, if I may, to proceed off the leader's time on the CR that is before the body.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Heritage Land Transfer Act of 2000. This legislation, while inconsequential when compared to many of the issues we deal with in the U.S. Congress, is extremely important to two of my oldest constituents, Douglas and Daniel Gross. These two brothers along with the other members of the Gross family are amongst Alaska's earliest pioneers. These two brothers have spent over 80 years drawing their existence out of the harsh Southeastern Alaskan environment. Through all these years, they managed to raise their families and contributed to building the great State that I have the privilege of representing. I would also point out that Douglas and Daniel Gross served our Nation during World War II at its time of greatest need--now these two veterans need our help to right a wrong that has been vested upon them through no fault of their own. ``The Heritage Land Transfer Act of 2000'' directs the Forest Service to convey 160 acres to Daniel and Douglas Gross. This granting of clear title would fix a problem that has plagued the family for the past 20 years. The need for this action arises from the fact that no records remain to substantial the family's claim that they homesteaded on Greens Point in the 1930's. Family homesteading records were destroyed when the Gross home burned to the ground in 1935-1936 and to make matters worse, the Forest Service is unable to locate any documentation to substantiate the Gross family claim. With neither title nor documentation, Doug and Dan Gross are unable to produce any legal record of ownership to the land their parents homesteaded. The paper records, however, are the only things missing. The Forest Service willingly acknowledges that a large body of evidence exists that clearly establishes the fact that the family built a home on Greens Point in the 1930's, that they grew and sold vegetables from this farmstead, and that they were good neighbors to many people caught out in our famous Alaskan storms. While the family and the Forest Service have searched in vain for written records, there is one piece of physical evidence to substantiate the family claim. On September 11, 1989, Alaska State Senator Robin Taylor traveled to the Gross property on the Stikine River for the purpose of locating a witness tree which would provide objective proof to the Gross family claim of homestead. In a letter Senator Taylor sent to Richard Kohrt, Wrangell District Ranger, Tongass National Forest he wrote ``I was present when Mr. Bungy, United States Forest Service specialist, sawed and chopped open the large spruce tree which the Gross Brothers had identified from memory as being a witness tree. Mr. Bungy verified that the large blaze uncovered was of the exact age that coincided with the Gross claim. By counting the annual growth rings it coincided with the many affidavits and statements of witness about the Gross claim of homestead.'' There is no question that the family settled on the Green Point property on the Stikine River in the 1930's. They raised all of their children on their property and were good friends to all who lived and worked throughout the region. I have in my possession many affidavits, each one testifying to the settlement of the Gross family along the Stikine River. I offer the following quotations typical of these testaments: ``In the early 1930's I spent a lot of time up the Stikine River at the Gross Ranch. They had a large two story home and a huge garden . . .'' ``I stayed with Mr. and Mrs. Bill Gross in the middle thirties. Bessie Gross took care of my brother Gilbert and I while my mother and father were out fishing, they had a house and garden on the river which everyone knows as the Gross place even to this day . . .'' ``I stayed with Bessie Gross and Family during the late 1930's in their place up the river . . .'' And another from Mr. Harry Sundberg, a gillnet fisherman, used to fish in ``what was known locally as the Gross homestead.'' Mr. Sundberg goes on to say ``While most people during that period did not file on the land they occupied, I distinctly recall that our conversations included the fact that they had applied for their application to own property similar to Captain Lee, who owned the property directly south of them on the mainland.'' The Homestead Act requires residency for a minimum of 3 years. These affidavits, and many others, verify the Gross families life on this property since the early 1930's. In a letter from the Department of Agriculture to Senator Stevens they write ``Even though it's clear the Gross family homesteaded on the property, there is no evidence or record that they completed the process to obtain title.'' Another letter from the Department of Agriculture states ``the Forest Service does not and has not refuted your claim that you and/or your family resided at Greens Point in the 1930's.'' An Alaska Magazine article written in 1984 references the ``Gross place'' along the Stikine River. The Homestead Act authorized the transfer of 160 acre parcels of federal land to private owners. The Gross Homestead is 160.8 acres. A tree, both Daniel and Douglas Gross remember being used as a survey marker when they were boys, was examined in 1989 and found to have a flat face blazed into the wood approximately 50 years prior. This is not a coincidence. It is proof this land was surveyed when the family claims it was surveyed. This family has lived on, and made use of this land for 70 years. It is time for them to be named the legal title holders, and to complete the already started process of shuffling paper.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Heritage Land Transfer Act of 2000. This legislation, while inconsequential when compared to many of the issues we deal with in the U.S. Congress, is extremely important to two of my oldest constituents, Douglas and Daniel Gross. These two brothers along with the other members of the Gross family are amongst Alaska's earliest pioneers. These two brothers have spent over 80 years drawing their existence out of the harsh Southeastern Alaskan environment. Through all these years, they managed to raise their families and contributed to building the great State that I have the privilege of representing. I would also point out that Douglas and Daniel Gross served our Nation during World War II at its time of greatest need--now these two veterans need our help to right a wrong that has been vested upon them through no fault of their own. ``The Heritage Land Transfer Act of 2000'' directs the Forest Service to convey 160 acres to Daniel and Douglas Gross. This granting of clear title would fix a problem that has plagued the family for the past 20 years. The need for this action arises from the fact that no records remain to substantial the family's claim that they homesteaded on Greens Point in the 1930's. Family homesteading records were destroyed when the Gross home burned to the ground in 1935-1936 and to make matters worse, the Forest Service is unable to locate any documentation to substantiate the Gross family claim. With neither title nor documentation, Doug and Dan Gross are unable to produce any legal record of ownership to the land their parents homesteaded. The paper records, however, are the only things missing. The Forest Service willingly acknowledges that a large body of evidence exists that clearly establishes the fact that the family built a home on Greens Point in the 1930's, that they grew and sold vegetables from this farmstead, and that they were good neighbors to many people caught out in our famous Alaskan storms. While the family and the Forest Service have searched in vain for written records, there is one piece of physical evidence to substantiate the family claim. On September 11, 1989, Alaska State Senator Robin Taylor traveled to the Gross property on the Stikine River for the purpose of locating a witness tree which would provide objective proof to the Gross family claim of homestead. In a letter Senator Taylor sent to Richard Kohrt, Wrangell District Ranger, Tongass National Forest he wrote ``I was present when Mr. Bungy, United States Forest Service specialist, sawed and chopped open the large spruce tree which the Gross Brothers had identified from memory as being a witness tree. Mr. Bungy verified that the large blaze uncovered was of the exact age that coincided with the Gross claim. By counting the annual growth rings it coincided with the many affidavits and statements of witness about the Gross claim of homestead.'' There is no question that the family settled on the Green Point property on the Stikine River in the 1930's. They raised all of their children on their property and were good friends to all who lived and worked throughout the region. I have in my possession many affidavits, each one testifying to the settlement of the Gross family along the Stikine River. I offer the following quotations typical of these testaments: ``In the early 1930's I spent a lot of time up the Stikine River at the Gross Ranch. They had a large two story home and a huge garden . . .'' ``I stayed with Mr. and Mrs. Bill Gross in the middle thirties. Bessie Gross took care of my brother Gilbert and I while my mother and father were out fishing, they had a house and garden on the river which everyone knows as the Gross place even to this day . . .'' ``I stayed with Bessie Gross and Family during the late 1930's in their place up the river . . .'' And another from Mr. Harry Sundberg, a gillnet fisherman, used to fish in ``what was known locally as the Gross homestead.'' Mr. Sundberg goes on to say ``While most people during that period did not file on the land they occupied, I distinctly recall that our conversations included the fact that they had applied for their application to own property similar to Captain Lee, who owned the property directly south of them on the mainland.'' The Homestead Act requires residency for a minimum of 3 years. These affidavits, and many others, verify the Gross families life on this property since the early 1930's. In a letter from the Department of Agriculture to Senator Stevens they write ``Even though it's clear the Gross family homesteaded on the property, there is no evidence or record that they completed the process to obtain title.'' Another letter from the Department of Agriculture states ``the Forest Service does not and has not refuted your claim that you and/or your family resided at Greens Point in the 1930's.'' An Alaska Magazine article written in 1984 references the ``Gross place'' along the Stikine River. The Homestead Act authorized the transfer of 160 acre parcels of federal land to private owners. The Gross Homestead is 160.8 acres. A tree, both Daniel and Douglas Gross remember being used as a survey marker when they were boys, was examined in 1989 and found to have a flat face blazed into the wood approximately 50 years prior. This is not a coincidence. It is proof this land was surveyed when the family claims it was surveyed. This family has lived on, and made use of this land for 70 years. It is time for them to be named the legal title holders, and to complete the already started process of shuffling paper.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 28, 2000 at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on U.S. policy toward Iraq.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 28, 2000 at 9:30 a.m., on Department of Commerce trade missions/political activities.