Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I compliment the occupant of the chair for being so patient at this late hour. I rise to speak on behalf of permanent trade relations with China and in support of H.R. 4444, which is PNTR for China. I come to this body, after some 20 years, no stranger to China, having traveled there on numerous occasions, more recently a journey down the Yangtze River to observe the controversial construction of the building of the Three Gorges Dam. It has been a great concern by America's environmental community as to the legitimacy of this project. It will be one of the largest construction projects in the world. But looking back at what we did in the United States in the 1930s with the TVA project, the flood control, the power generation, what we have done in the Columbia River system, it is very much in parallel to what China is attempting to do: flood control, power generation, and cleaning up their air. It is interesting to reflect on the experience of U.S. participation in this project. The Eximbank believed that the project did not meet its environmental examination sufficiently so it exempted any U.S. firms from participating in the sense of funding two Chinese contractors to buy American equipment. As a result of the inability of the Eximbank to get a clearance on the environmental consequences and adequacy, there was no U.S. construction material that went into this. As a consequence, Caterpillar alone lost over $1 billion in sales. I point this out to reflect on the merits of the current debate on certain restrictions that we should or should not have in association with PNTR for China. I know there is a great deal of interest in the business community. Some see it as a great opportunity. I see it as incremental gains for American businesses in the near term. But unlike many in the business lobby, my own feeling is that it is going to take a period of time. In my own State of Alaska, we may see some gains in agricultural and seafood exports, but for the most part, it is going to take a number of years to build up this trade. The question comes to mind: Are the gains worth the hew and cry this bill is bringing about and the extensive debate? I have a little different view. Why, if I am not necessarily swayed by the arguments of the business community, do I rise in support of PNTR? As with most of my colleagues, I spent a good deal of time considering the merits of the debate. I have heard the arguments on both sides. I continue to listen carefully to the amendments proposed and the considered opinions of my colleagues, which I respect. Furthermore, as a member of the Finance Committee, I have discussed the subject. We have had debates as it played out over the course of the past weeks. I noticed throughout this time a reoccurring theme from both opponents and supporters of the bill. We have tended throughout the course of these many months and whenever we have discussed China, either on the floor or in the committee, to refer to China as some sort of a monolith. We say China brutalizes her people. We say China represses religious freedom. We say China is the world's greatest proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, or we say we should not reward China for her misconduct by passing PNTR. Occasionally, we are guilty in this body of painting in broad brush strokes. We have a tendency to generalize. We use verbal shortcuts. We say ``China'' when we mean China's Government or even certain members of China's Government. In this instance, however, our reference to a monolithic China is not only misplaced, it goes to the heart of the fundamental misunderstanding regarding this bill. PNTR does not reward the Chinese Government. PNTR does not help the Chinese Government maintain repressive control. Passage of this bill, as has been pointed out, will not mean that China gets into WTO. They will get into WTO whether we vote for PNTR or not. We are voting instead on a basic question of U.S.-China policy, whether trade with China is in America's national interest. We talk a lot about the messages this vote will send to the Chinese Government. The message we should send is that we believe trade between American and the Chinese people should be fostered and should be strengthened. As I said at the outset, I do not believe American business interests are our primary concern in this matter. American foreign policy interests trump business interests in this matter. So what is our primary foreign policy interest in China? Our primary foreign policy interest in China is to see the democratization of China. At the heart of this bill is nothing more than the formal recognition of the profound economic effect and shift in China which has occurred since 1979, when we first began the annual debate over our trade relationship with China. In 1979, China's economy was dominated by Government-owned, Government-managed companies. This is the point that justifies my position on supporting PNTR, because we have seen a change since 1979, when the economy was dominated by Government-owned, Government-managed companies. Virtually 100 percent of China's gross national product at that time was derived from the industrial and commercial activities of not private enterprise but of Government. Private enterprise simply didn't exist at that time. That is not the case anymore. Twenty years after we began normal trade relations with China, private enterprise not only exists today in China but now it dominates the Chinese economy. The private sector accounts for nearly 70 percent of China's economic output, compared with just 30 percent for the Government-owned sector. Normal trade relations with China are not the same as they were in 1979--again, that is my point--when all trade flowed through the Chinese Government. At that time, if we had said ``PNTR for China,'' we would have meant PNTR for the Chinese Government. Now the vast majority of trade with China is between private enterprise here and private enterprise there. PNTR means normal trade relations between American and Chinese peoples. Now, an ever-increasing number of Chinese do not depend on the Chinese Government for their livelihoods, as they did back in 1979. By joining the World Trade Organization, China's reformers are attempting to add to the ranks of the private sector and deal a final blow to the bloated, anticompetitive, and inefficient state-owned enterprises. The overwhelming consensus of experts on China's political economy is that China's attempt to join the WTO is a tactic to pressure the remaining state-owned enterprises to either privatize or fail. As such, the Chinese Communist Party is, in effect, making the ultimate admission that communism, for its practical purposes, is dead. Voting for PNTR is, in effect, recognition that the China of the year 2000 is a China of unprecedented economic self-determination--economic freedom for individual Chinese people. Well, some of the skeptics say, big deal; Chinese citizens may have greater economic freedom, but they lack political freedom. That is true; I concede that. They say the Chinese lack religious freedom. True enough. They say the Chinese are unable to freely organize labor unions. True again. But to say that PNTR will only strengthen the hand of China's Government I don't think is a credible argument. The Chinese Communist Party is betting China can have a modern, efficient, capitalist economy, one that generates significant tax revenue, without giving up any political control. They are gambling that Chinese citizens will be happy to earn a better living and will be happy to pay taxes unquestioningly to their Government. That is the difference. This is a profound shift in a country in which the Government was responsible to support its citizens, rather than the citizens responsible to support the Government. That is a big change, Mr. President. For years, China's governmental revenues have come directly from state-owned companies. That is where the revenue has come from. The profits of these enterprises go directly to the Government to fund its activities. But state-owned enterprises, as I have said, are inherently inefficient and are failing badly--more than 50 percent of them are de facto insolvent; they are broke; they cannot now provide the Chinese Government with the funds it needs. For this reason, China's reformers have been pushing for a market economy led by a robust private sector--the private sector which will not deliver its profits directly to the Government but will, through its companies and employees, pay taxes to that Government. These days, entrepreneurs are not paid by the Government; they pay to the Government. For the first time in the history of the People's Republic of China, the Government relies more on its citizens than its citizens rely on their Government. Is taxation without representation a good bet for the Chinese Government? It seems to me we know a little about that here. We have had a few lessons from our own history that would be instructive to the Chinese Government. My own bet is that there is no better catalyst for democracy than a group of irate taxpayers. Does supporting PNTR suggest that the Senate approves of the Chinese Government's actions to suppress freedom, organized labor, bully democratic Taiwan, or engage in missile proliferation? Not one bit. PNTR is nothing more than a recognition of the strides toward economic freedom the Chinese people have made. PNTR supports the Chinese people in their quest to break free of the yoke of communism. What happens if we don't grant PNTR? Will the Chinese people applaud us for standing up for their rights? Will the Chinese people recognize that we believe our refusal to grant PNTR strikes a blow for political or religious freedoms? No. The Chinese people will take it as a slight, a sense that we do not somehow want them to develop the economic freedoms that we in the United States enjoy today, a sense that the United States is the enemy of China's development. The Chinese Government, which has no longer any ideological claim to power, will employ this sense of U.S. antagonism to fuel the fires of Chinese nationalism. In our rush to help save the Chinese people from their Government, we will ourselves be the instrument of their further repression. Let us not choose that course. Let us recognize that this bill encourages the growth of relations between Chinese and American citizens and vote to support PNTR. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 106-373 was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 106-324 was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 106-173 was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in the Congressional Record for the information of the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 14 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the transportation of Alaska North Slope natural gas to market and to investigate the cost, environmental aspects, economic impacts and energy security implications to Alaska and the rest of the nation for alternative routes and projects. For further information, please call Dan Kish at (202) 224-8276 or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-4756.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators, Gorton, Kerrey and Jeffords in introducing the Electric Power Industry Tax Modernization Act, legislation that will facilitate the opening up of the nation's energy grid to electricity competition. This landmark legislation demonstrates the good faith of the most important players in the industry--the investor owned utilities (IOUs) and the municipal utilities. In the Energy Committee, which I currently Chair, we have held more than 18 days of hearings and heard testimony from more than 160 witnesses on electricity restructuring. Although those 160 witnesses had many differing views, every witness agreed that the tax laws must be rewritten to reflect the new reality of a competitive electricity market. Already, 24 states have implemented laws deregulating their electricity markets. And the other 36 states are all considering deregulation schemes. Faced with that reality, the federal tax laws must be updated to ensure that tax laws which made sense when electricity was a regulated monopoly are not allowed to interfere with opening up the nation's electrical infrastructure to competition. Last October I held a hearing in the Finance Committee Subcommittee on Long Term Growth to examine all of the tax issues that confront the industry. At the end of the hearing I urged all parties to sit down at the negotiating table and hammer out a consensus that will resolve the tax issues. The bill we are introducing today reflects the compromise that has been reached between the IOUs and the municipal utilities. One of the major problems that the current tax rules create is to undermine the efficiency of the entire electric system in a deregulated environment because these rules effectively preclude public power entities from participating in State open access restructuring plans, without jeopardizing the exempt status of their bonds. No one wants to see bonds issued to finance public power become retroactively taxable because a municipality chooses to participate in a state open access plan. That would cause havoc in the financial markets and could undermine the financial stability of many municipalities. The bill we are introducing overcomes this problem by allowing municipal systems to elect to terminate the issuance of new tax-exempt bonds for generation facilities in return for grandfathering existing bonds. In addition, the bill allows tax-exempt bonds to be issued to finance some new transmission facilities. I recognize that in making these two changes in the tax law, the municipal utilities have given up a substantial financing tool that has been at the heart of the controversy between the municipal utilities and the IOUs. At the same time, the bill updates the tax code to reflect the fact that the regulated monopoly model no longer exists. For example, the bill modifies the current rules regarding the treatment of nuclear decommissioning costs to make certain that utilities will have the resources to meet those future costs and clarifies the tax treatment of these funds if a nuclear facility is sold. The bill also provides tax relief for utilities that spin off or sell transmission facilities to independent participants in FERC approved regional transmission organizations. Another section of the bill changes the tax rules regarding contributions in aid of construction for electric transmission and distribution facilities. This is an especially important provision; however when this bill is considered in the Finance Committee, I intend to modify this proposal so that it is expanded to all contributions in aid of construction, not just for electric transmission and distribution. The IOUs and the Municipal utilities are to be commended for coming up with this agreement. However, there is one other element of the tax code that needs to be addressed if we are going to open the entire grid to competition. And that sector is the cooperative sector. Currently, coops may not participate in wheeling power through their lines because of concern that they will violate the so-called 85-15 test. I urge the coops to sit down with the other utilities and reach an accord so that when we consider this legislation, the coops' will be included in a tax bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators, Gorton, Kerrey and Jeffords in introducing the Electric Power Industry Tax Modernization Act, legislation that will facilitate the opening up of the nation's energy grid to electricity competition. This landmark legislation demonstrates the good faith of the most important players in the industry--the investor owned utilities (IOUs) and the municipal utilities. In the Energy Committee, which I currently Chair, we have held more than 18 days of hearings and heard testimony from more than 160 witnesses on electricity restructuring. Although those 160 witnesses had many differing views, every witness agreed that the tax laws must be rewritten to reflect the new reality of a competitive electricity market. Already, 24 states have implemented laws deregulating their electricity markets. And the other 36 states are all considering deregulation schemes. Faced with that reality, the federal tax laws must be updated to ensure that tax laws which made sense when electricity was a regulated monopoly are not allowed to interfere with opening up the nation's electrical infrastructure to competition. Last October I held a hearing in the Finance Committee Subcommittee on Long Term Growth to examine all of the tax issues that confront the industry. At the end of the hearing I urged all parties to sit down at the negotiating table and hammer out a consensus that will resolve the tax issues. The bill we are introducing today reflects the compromise that has been reached between the IOUs and the municipal utilities. One of the major problems that the current tax rules create is to undermine the efficiency of the entire electric system in a deregulated environment because these rules effectively preclude public power entities from participating in State open access restructuring plans, without jeopardizing the exempt status of their bonds. No one wants to see bonds issued to finance public power become retroactively taxable because a municipality chooses to participate in a state open access plan. That would cause havoc in the financial markets and could undermine the financial stability of many municipalities. The bill we are introducing overcomes this problem by allowing municipal systems to elect to terminate the issuance of new tax-exempt bonds for generation facilities in return for grandfathering existing bonds. In addition, the bill allows tax-exempt bonds to be issued to finance some new transmission facilities. I recognize that in making these two changes in the tax law, the municipal utilities have given up a substantial financing tool that has been at the heart of the controversy between the municipal utilities and the IOUs. At the same time, the bill updates the tax code to reflect the fact that the regulated monopoly model no longer exists. For example, the bill modifies the current rules regarding the treatment of nuclear decommissioning costs to make certain that utilities will have the resources to meet those future costs and clarifies the tax treatment of these funds if a nuclear facility is sold. The bill also provides tax relief for utilities that spin off or sell transmission facilities to independent participants in FERC approved regional transmission organizations. Another section of the bill changes the tax rules regarding contributions in aid of construction for electric transmission and distribution facilities. This is an especially important provision; however when this bill is considered in the Finance Committee, I intend to modify this proposal so that it is expanded to all contributions in aid of construction, not just for electric transmission and distribution. The IOUs and the Municipal utilities are to be commended for coming up with this agreement. However, there is one other element of the tax code that needs to be addressed if we are going to open the entire grid to competition. And that sector is the cooperative sector. Currently, coops may not participate in wheeling power through their lines because of concern that they will violate the so-called 85-15 test. I urge the coops to sit down with the other utilities and reach an accord so that when we consider this legislation, the coops' will be included in a tax bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight field hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, August 23 at 9 a.m. in the U.S. Federal Building Courthouse, Courtroom 1, located at 222 West 7th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Anchorage, AK. The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight on the implementation of the federal takeover of subsistence fisheries in Alaska. Additionally, the Committee will examine the recent decision by the Federal Subsistence Board regarding a ``rural'' determination for the Kenai Peninsula. Oral testimony will be provided by members of the Federal Subsistence Board. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please contact Brian Malnak at 202-224-8119 or Jo Meuse at 202-224-4756. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to improve the operation of the Arctic Research and Policy Act. We have about 15 years of experience with this Act, and the time has come to make some modifications to reflect the experience we have gained over that time. The most important feature of this bill is contained in Section 4. This section authorizes the Arctic Research Commission, a Presidential Commission, to make grants for scientific research. Currently, the Commission can make recommendations and set priorities, but it cannot make grants. Our experience with the Act and the Commission has shown us that research needs that do not fit neatly in a single agency do not get funded, even if they are compelling priorities. One example is a proposed Arctic contamination initiative that was developed a few years ago after we discovered that pollutants from the Former Soviet Union--including radionuclides, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants--were working their way into the Arctic environment. It became clear that the job of monitoring and evaluating the threat was too big for any single agency. The Interior Department, given its vast land management responsibilities in Alaska, was interested. The Commerce Department, given the jurisdiction over fisheries issues, was interested. The Department of Health and Human Services, given its concern about the health of Alaska's indigenous peoples, was interested. The only agency that didn't seem interested in the problem, strangely enough, was the EPA, which at the time was in the process of dismantling its Arctic Contaminants program. Unfortunately, because the job was too big for any single agency, it was difficult to get the level of interagency cooperation necessary for a coordinated program. Moreover, agencies were unwilling to make a significant budgetary commitment to a program that wasn't under their exclusive control. If the Arctic Research Commission, which recognized the need, had some funding of its own to leverage agency participation and help to coordinate the effort, we would know far more about the Arctic contaminants problem than we do today. Another example is the compelling need to understand the Bering Sea ecosystem. Over the past 20 years we have seen significant shifts in some of the populations comprising this ecosystem. King crab populations have declined sharply. Pollock populations have increased sharply. Steller sea lion populations have declined as have many types of sea birds. Scientists cannot tell us whether these population shifts are due to abiotic factors such as climate change, biotic factors such as predator-prey relationships, or some combination of both. Because the nation depends on this area for a significant portion of all its seafood, this is not an issue without stakeholders. Despite the chorus of interests and federal agencies that have said research is needed, a coordinated effort has not yet occurred. If the Arctic Research Commission, which recognized this need early on, had some funding of its own to leverage agency participation and help to coordinate the effort, we would know far more about the Bering Sea ecosystem than we do today. This bill also makes a number of other minor changes in the Act: Section 2 allows the Chairperson of the Commission to receive compensation for up to 120 days per year rather than the 90 days per year currently allowed by the Act. The Chairperson has a major role to play in interacting with the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, representing the Commission to non-governmental organizations, in interacting with the State of Alaska, and serving in international fora. In the past, chairpersons have been unable to fully discharge their responsibilities in the 90 day limit specified in the Act. Section 3 authorizes the Commission to award an annual award not to exceed $1,000 to recognize either outstanding research or outstanding efforts in support of research in the Arctic. The ability to give modest awards will bring recognition to outstanding efforts in Arctic Research which, in turn, will help to stimulate research in the Arctic region. This section also specifies that a current or former Commission member is not eligible to receive the award. Section 5 authorizes official representative and reception activities. Because the Commission is not authorized to use fund for these kinds of activities, the Commission has experienced embarrassment when they were unable to reciprocate after their foreign counterparts hosted a reception or lunch on their behalf. Under this provision, the Commission may spend not more than two tenths of one percent of its budget for representation and reception activities in each fiscal year. Mr. President, the Arctic Research and Policy Act and the Arctic Research Commission has worked well over the past 15 years. It can work even better with these modest changes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to improve the operation of the Arctic Research and Policy Act. We have about 15 years of experience with this Act, and the time has come to make some modifications to reflect the experience we have gained over that time. The most important feature of this bill is contained in Section 4. This section authorizes the Arctic Research Commission, a Presidential Commission, to make grants for scientific research. Currently, the Commission can make recommendations and set priorities, but it cannot make grants. Our experience with the Act and the Commission has shown us that research needs that do not fit neatly in a single agency do not get funded, even if they are compelling priorities. One example is a proposed Arctic contamination initiative that was developed a few years ago after we discovered that pollutants from the Former Soviet Union--including radionuclides, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants--were working their way into the Arctic environment. It became clear that the job of monitoring and evaluating the threat was too big for any single agency. The Interior Department, given its vast land management responsibilities in Alaska, was interested. The Commerce Department, given the jurisdiction over fisheries issues, was interested. The Department of Health and Human Services, given its concern about the health of Alaska's indigenous peoples, was interested. The only agency that didn't seem interested in the problem, strangely enough, was the EPA, which at the time was in the process of dismantling its Arctic Contaminants program. Unfortunately, because the job was too big for any single agency, it was difficult to get the level of interagency cooperation necessary for a coordinated program. Moreover, agencies were unwilling to make a significant budgetary commitment to a program that wasn't under their exclusive control. If the Arctic Research Commission, which recognized the need, had some funding of its own to leverage agency participation and help to coordinate the effort, we would know far more about the Arctic contaminants problem than we do today. Another example is the compelling need to understand the Bering Sea ecosystem. Over the past 20 years we have seen significant shifts in some of the populations comprising this ecosystem. King crab populations have declined sharply. Pollock populations have increased sharply. Steller sea lion populations have declined as have many types of sea birds. Scientists cannot tell us whether these population shifts are due to abiotic factors such as climate change, biotic factors such as predator-prey relationships, or some combination of both. Because the nation depends on this area for a significant portion of all its seafood, this is not an issue without stakeholders. Despite the chorus of interests and federal agencies that have said research is needed, a coordinated effort has not yet occurred. If the Arctic Research Commission, which recognized this need early on, had some funding of its own to leverage agency participation and help to coordinate the effort, we would know far more about the Bering Sea ecosystem than we do today. This bill also makes a number of other minor changes in the Act: Section 2 allows the Chairperson of the Commission to receive compensation for up to 120 days per year rather than the 90 days per year currently allowed by the Act. The Chairperson has a major role to play in interacting with the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, representing the Commission to non-governmental organizations, in interacting with the State of Alaska, and serving in international fora. In the past, chairpersons have been unable to fully discharge their responsibilities in the 90 day limit specified in the Act. Section 3 authorizes the Commission to award an annual award not to exceed $1,000 to recognize either outstanding research or outstanding efforts in support of research in the Arctic. The ability to give modest awards will bring recognition to outstanding efforts in Arctic Research which, in turn, will help to stimulate research in the Arctic region. This section also specifies that a current or former Commission member is not eligible to receive the award. Section 5 authorizes official representative and reception activities. Because the Commission is not authorized to use fund for these kinds of activities, the Commission has experienced embarrassment when they were unable to reciprocate after their foreign counterparts hosted a reception or lunch on their behalf. Under this provision, the Commission may spend not more than two tenths of one percent of its budget for representation and reception activities in each fiscal year. Mr. President, the Arctic Research and Policy Act and the Arctic Research Commission has worked well over the past 15 years. It can work even better with these modest changes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two issues of great importance to our national security and our energy security--the agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation which provides for the conversion of Russian highly enriched uranium (HEU) derived from the warheads into fuel for civilian nuclear power plants, and the need for the United States to maintain a viable uranium enrichment capability. First, let me give you a bit of history. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act established the United States Enrichment Corporation as a wholly-owned government corporation to take over the Department of Energy's uranium enrichment enterprise. The Corporation was to operate as a business enterprise on a profitable and efficient basis and maximize the long-term valuation of the Corporation to the Treasury of the United States. The objective was to eventually privatize the Corporation as a viable business enterprise able to compete in world markets. Subsequently, the Corporation was selected as Executive Agent for, and entrusted with, the responsibility for carrying out the Russian HEU Agreement. Enactment of the 1992 Act was the culmination of a decade of bipartisan effort spearheaded by Senators Domenici and Ford. Extensive hearings were held in both the House and the Senate and the legislation garnered the strong support of the Bush Administration. Recognizing the complexity of privatization and the national security implications of the Russian HEU Agreement, Congress enacted the USEC Privatization Act of 1996. The Act provided the mechanics for privatization, clarified the relationship between a private USEC and the U.S. Government, and addressed concerns related to the implementation of the Russian HEU Agreement. The Corporation was sold in July of 1998. Implementation of the Russian HEU Agreement has been important for the government and USEC. This government-to-government agreement facilitates Russian conversion of highly enriched uranium taken from their dismantled nuclear weapons into fuel purchased by USEC and resold for use in commercial nuclear power plants. The program is financed as a commercial transaction. Every day, new warnings are heard about the ability of one rogue state or some well-financed terrorist to obtain weapons-grade nuclear materials on the black market. The Russian HEU Agreement addresses those concerns by converting thousands of nuclear warheads into fuel for electric power plants--the quintessential swords to plowshares concept. In spite of some start-up problems, implementation of the Agreement has resulted in the conversion of the equivalent of nearly 4,000 nuclear warheads into fuel for U.S. commercial power plants. The process, as well as purchases and shipments to USEC, continues. From the outset, many felt there were built-in contradictions between the objectives of maintaining a viable domestic uranium enrichment capability while controlling the disposal of former Soviet nuclear weapons. But, all things considered, the program to date has been a success. Without question our Nation's national security--our most important charge as lawmakers--has been enhanced by implementation of this Agreement. Mr. President, the Russian HEU Agreement contributes to our Nation's security, but the Agreement also adversely affects the enterprise that makes this commercial solution to a national security problem possible. This difficulty was understood when the government adopted this program. Purchases of large quantities of Russian weapons derived material result in growing effects on the companies in the private sector domestic nuclear fuel cycle. Our uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment industries have been affected. The result has been steadily declining market prices for all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle. USEC, its plant workers, and the communities dependent upon those plants are being hit especially hard. As Executive Agent, USEC has suffered substantial losses due to fixed price purchases from Russia as well as increased costs due to reduced levels of domestic production resulting from introduction of the Russian material into the market. Earlier this year, and with the support of the Administration, USEC had been negotiating with Russia to amend the Agreement to include market-based pricing. I have been advised that USEC closely coordinated its plans and intentions with the President's Interagency Enrichment Oversight Committee at all phases of its discussions with the Russians. Yet, as USEC and the Russians were meeting in Moscow to sign the new Agreement, the Department of Energy, a member of the Oversight Committee, prevented the signing at the last minute. I can not understand why the Energy Department would prevent the adoption of an amendment that would stabilize the Agreement through the remaining thirteen years of the program. Reportedly the terms were acceptable to both parties. In addition, the Agreement would have protected the interests of our own domestic nuclear fuel industry. As part of the Agreement, Russia wanted USEC to purchase commercially produced enrichment in addition to the weapons derived enrichment. USEC negotiated terms consistent with a previous Administration approved program making it mandatory that this additional quantity be matched with domestically produced enrichment. In addition, no additional natural uranium would be brought into the domestic market. The amendment to the Agreement was specifically crafted so that no damage would be inflicted upon the domestic nuclear fuel cycle as a result of purchasing the additional material. The Department of Energy's action threatens to destabilize the agreement. Who knows how long the Russians will sit by without this Agreement. The National Security Council and the State Department and others on the Enrichment Oversight Committee have endorsed the signing of this Agreement. I strongly urge that it be completed. I suggest that those of us in the Congress who believe in the vital importance of this Agreement express our concern to the Administration and demand that the Energy Department withdraw its objection and that the Agreement be speedily signed. As I mentioned, higher production costs, decreased demand, and lower world prices have hit USEC, our Nation's sole domestic uranium enricher, particularly hard. USEC's Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 noted that: ``In February 2000, Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service revised their credit ratings of USEC's long-term debt to below investment grade. The revised rating gives USEC the ability to discontinue its uranium enrichment operations at a plant. USEC is evaluating its options; however, a decision has not been made as to whether to close a plant, which plant would be selected or the timing of any closure.'' Finally, on June 21, the Board of Directors of USEC Inc. voted to cease uranium enrichment operations in June 2001 at the Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plant in Piketon, Ohio, and to consolidate all enrichment operations at its Paducah, Kentucky production plant. USEC maintained that it could not sustain current operations at two production plants, each of which is currently operating at only 25 percent of capacity. The company said that its production costs were too high and that the termination of operations at Portsmouth would save upwards of $55 million in fixed costs annually. USEC's decision to close a plant comes as no surprise. For over a year, there has been speculation within the Clinton Administration, the energy industry, the media and on Capitol Hill that USEC would be forced to consolidate its uranium enrichment production. Mr. James R. Mellor, Chairman of USEC's Board of Directors was quoted in a news release as saying: ``The decision to cease enrichment at one of our facilities was necessary given the business challenges facing the uranium enrichment industry . . . Mr. Mellor went on to say: ``Choosing to close the Portsmouth plant was an extremely difficult decision because of the impact it will have on the lives of many of our workers, their families and the communities surrounding the plant.'' USEC cited multiple factors in determining which plant would close. Key elements in USEC's analysis included ``long-term and short-term power costs, operational performance and reliability, design and material condition of the plants, risks associated with meeting customer orders on time, and other factors relating to assay levels, financial results, and new technology issues.'' I know that my colleagues from Ohio are deeply disturbed by USEC's decision to close the Portsmouth plant. I also know that if the company had chosen to cease operations at Paducah, my friends from Kentucky would be equally distraught. Plant closures are serious matters, particularly when they are the mainstay of the local economy. The public record is clear that technological advances in uranium enrichment were rapidly overtaking the gaseous diffusion process as an economic method of enriching uranium. Make no mistake, the Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants were and continue to be extraordinary engineering, design, and construction achievements-- matched only by the dedication and skill of the men and women who have made the plants work--work, 24 hours a day--work, seven days a week-- work, continuously for over 45 years without a stop, without a break in service--until now. It was inevitable that this would happen someday, but knowing that it will happen does not make it any easier. The only person who seemed to be caught by surprise and unprepared to deal with the closure was the Secretary of Energy. Certainly, he must have known that USEC was preparing to make an announcement. He must have been aware that, as part of the 1996 USEC Privatization Act, the Department of Energy--not the company--would be responsible for decommissioning, decontamination and clean-up of the plants and the sites as well as for workforce disposition. In fact, in a June 19, 2000 letter to Mr. William H. Timbers, USEC's president and chief executive officer, the Secretary of Energy asked if the company was planning to close either one of its uranium production facilities. In response, Mr. Timbers wrote on June 20, 2000, that ``during our last meeting, I indicated to you, and reiterated in subsequent meetings with your staff, that it is inevitable that USEC must close one of its enrichment facilities.'' Mr. Timbers added that ``During the last eight months, we have presented numerous proposals-- still pending before you--to accomplish [transition]. But, DOE has yet to make a decision. We have also engaged in discussions with PACE union leadership aimed at advancing these efforts. We are still ready and eager to translate these discussions into actions and look forward to the prospect of working with DOE to adopt a program to minimize the employment disruption associated with ensuring a financially sound USEC under today's market conditions.'' The next day, when USEC announced that its Board of Directors had voted to close the Portsmouth facility, the best the Nation's Secretary of Energy could come up with was the following statement: ``I am extremely disappointed by [USEC's] decision today to close the uranium enrichment plant at Portsmouth. First and foremost, I am very concerned about the effect this closure will have on USEC workers. Many of these men and women spent their entire working lives helping our nation win the Cold War. They deserve better treatment. . .'' For once, Secretary Richardson and I agree. The workers do deserve better. But rather than threatening USEC, as the Secretary of Energy did when he recommended ``serious consideration of replacing USEC as executive agent'' for the Russian HEU Agreement, he should have been drafting a plan to assist the workers in Portsmouth to make the transition from operating the Department of Energy owned gaseous diffusion plant to cleaning up the site. This is an environmental restoration mission that is likely to take many years. We are all aware of the environmental contamination at the plants and the desperate need for action to restore them to reasonable environmental condition. When Congress created the United States Enrichment Corporation as part of the 1992 Energy Policy Act, and when we later passed the 1996 USEC Privatization Act, we recognized that a privately owned USEC could better respond to the needs of the marketplace and thereby sustain a viable domestic uranium enrichment capability. Now that USEC has taken what it believes is a necessary step to ensure that it can compete in the world uranium enrichment marketplace, the first response by the Secretary of Energy is to second-guess the company's intentions and actions. Apparently the Secretary would keep facilities open regardless of the fundamental laws of economics that are evident to even the most modest businesses. It has been suggested that the solution is to nationalize USEC--to have the government buy it back. I have no sympathy for such a proposal. While I am sympathetic to those who will be affected by the closure of Portsmouth, I do not believe that a return to the past is the remedy that will provide for a competitive domestic uranium enrichment capability in the future. I do not favor an appropriation of substantial sums, perhaps well over a billion dollars to buy USEC back, nor do I favor the then obligatory commitment to annually appropriate funds to make up for uneconomic operations. It has been only two years since we privatized USEC. On the one hand the Congress and the Administration made an extraordinary effort to provide a private USEC with a strong foundation for a successful private enterprise competing in world markets--in the words of the '96 Act `` . . . in a manner that provides for the long-term viability of the Corporation . . .'' But at the same time, contradictory restraints imposed on the Corporation detract from its ability to compete. In retrospect, perhaps Congress and the Administration should not have placed so many burdens on USEC as it faced private sector dynamics and demands. Ensuring that the vital national security interests of the United States are protected is paramount, but preserving the competitiveness of our domestic uranium enrichment capability--at minimal costs to the federal government--is important too. We need to stop thinking of USEC as a Federal agency and respect it for what it is--a private business enterprise. Challenges remain in the implementation of the Russian HEU Agreement and the long-term viability of the domestic uranium enrichment enterprise. These have proven to be complex, and at times conflicting tasks, but I believe that the National interest more than justifies our continued efforts to see these programs through to a successful conclusion. As part of these efforts we should encourage the Clinton Administration to approve the market-based pricing amendment to the Russian HEU Agreement. Now is also the time to secure a future for the workers in Portsmouth who face plant closure. We need to help them achieve their third transition--from Cold War patriots, to peacetime producers of fuel, to the task of environmental restoration Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, August 10, 2000, at 10:30 a.m. in the Alaska Native Brotherhood Hall; 320 Willoughby Ave, Juneau, Alaska 99801. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony to assist in establishing the value of the Brady Glacier mineral deposit within Glacier Bay National Park; and to examine implications of National Park Service restrictions on commercial fishing in Glacier Bay. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mike Menge (202) 224-6170 committee on energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, on several occasions I have risen before this body to address the crisis associated with energy in our Nation today. We have all experienced the high price of gasoline. We have seen a slight reduction of late, but I want to assure my colleagues that that situation is temporary, at best. The rationale for that is understandable if one considers the fact that we are currently consuming just about an amount equal to the productive capacity of our industry to supply gasoline. There are many good reasons for this. One is that we haven't built a new refinery in this country for almost 10 years now. We have closed about 37 refineries in the United States in the last decade and, as a consequence of our increased dependence on imported oil, we have lost a good deal of our leverage because currently about 56 percent of the oil we consume in this country is imported. Most of that comes from the Mideast. As a consequence, we have become more dependent on imported oil from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The fastest-growing supply of oil now coming into the United States is from Iraq. That is rather curious. A lot of people forget that in 1991 we fought a war over there. We lost 147 lives. We had nearly 427 wounded. We had a number taken prisoner. Yet Saddam Hussein is the one we are looking toward now. I think the American public should be aware that it is pretty difficult to define just what the energy policy of the Clinton-Gore administration has been. We have seen their policy with regard to the nuclear industry, which provides about 20 percent of the power generated in this country, and they have said no to storing high-level nuclear waste. We are one vote short of a veto override on that matter. We have not been able to generate that last vote. So it is clear that the administration has said no to the nuclear industry, as far as expanding its contribution to energy in this country. As we look to hydroelectric, we have seen a policy which suggests that perhaps some of the dams out West should be taken down, with no consideration for the realization that there is a tradeoff associated with that. If you take those dams down, you are taking the tonnage that is moved by barge and putting it on the highways. The implication of that is significant. It is estimated that as many as 700,000 trucks per year would have to go on the highways to replace the current cargo capacity of barges that would be lost. If we take away nuclear and go to hydro, oil is certainly something we are looking toward other nations to provide, as opposed to developing the resources here in the continental United States, in the overthrust belt of Colorado, Wyoming, and other areas, and where there is oil in my State of Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, and other States. It is my understanding that the administration has withdrawn about 64 percent of the public land in the overthrust belt, which is in the Rocky Mountain areas, excluding them from the development of energy resources. The potential for coal, of course, is significant. There are no new coal plants being built in this country. The cost of permitting is such that we find they are uneconomical. The emphasis seems to be on natural gas. But if we look to the last 6 months, we have seen natural gas prices go from about $2.16 to over $4 for delivery later this winter. The crisis associated with our energy policy, or lack of an energy policy, is real in every field of energy resources. Emphasis is placed by the administration to some extent on renewables. While we all support renewables, it is fair to say that renewables only constitute about 40 percent of our energy consumption, even though we have spent about $70 billion in subsidies in this area. While they have a potential, surely they are not at the forefront nor are they capable at this time of relieving our dependence on conventional energy sources. As we look at our policies today, I think there is confusion in the minds of Americans as they reflect on the statements of their political leaders and the policies they pursue. It is very easy to be confused. I would like to share some examples with my colleagues. If we go back to our Vice President, Al Gore, in his book ``Earth in the Balance,'' Al Gore, the environmentalist, wrote that ``higher taxes on fossil fuel . . . is one of the logical first steps in changing our policies in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment.'' All of us are obviously concerned over the health of our environment. We want to have a responsible approach associated with the environment. Nevertheless, the idea that raising the price of gasoline is good for the American economy and good for the American people is pretty hard to sell to the American public at this time when gasoline prices, depending on where we are in the country, range anywhere from $1.75 to $1.95 or higher. I think it is fair to say that perhaps the Vice President overlooks the reality that Americans live long distances from their jobs because they prefer to do so. We are a mobile society. As we are confronted with higher energy prices, obviously it not only affects our pocketbooks, but it affects inflation rates. At about the same time that the Clinton/Gore administration was talking about conservation, the Vice President was casting a tie- breaking vote in the Senate to raise gasoline taxes--we all remember that--and the Environmental Protection Agency determined that more expensive ``reformulated gasoline'' needed to be sold in many areas of the country. I am not arguing the merits of that--other than to report that before my committee on Energy and Natural Resources, one of the principals of the Environmental Protection Agency advised us that they are now required under the Clean Air Act to have nine different types of reformulated gasoline in this country. That meant our refiners had to batch the gasoline additives, they had to transport it separately, they had to store it separately. Obviously, all of that has a significant cost for the taxpayer. According to a memorandum from the Department of Energy and the Congressional Research Service, EPA's gasoline requirements balkanized markets, strained supplies, and raised prices. Since the policies of the administration were so effective in raising the prices, one might expect the Vice President to be pleased. But confronted with angry consumers on the campaign trail, the Vice President suggests that refiners and oil companies are to blame. A lot of finger-pointing is going on around here. Let me refer to an article that appeared in the Washington Times of July 19. This is an editorial covering a memorandum that came from the Clinton Energy Department suggesting that the Department was indeed aware that the administration's own regulations pertaining to so-called ``reformulated'' gasoline, rather than the oil industry gouging, were primarily responsible for the increased price of motor fuels. The reformulated gas--RFG--rule, which stipulated that refiners mix different types of gasoline for different localities, has made it impossible, or at least very difficult, to take advantage of the economies of scale in production and distribution that heretofore have helped keep U.S. energy prices stable and low. Their memo, which was sent June 5--a full week before the administration began to blame the oil industry for raising fuel prices--states that the RFG reformulated gasoline rule was a major reason for the price spike, delaying claims made by the administration that they couldn't see any reason other than blind greed for the change in per-gallon gasoline prices. I am not here to defend the industry, but I think it is fair to say that for the administration and the media to simply overlook what the cost of reformulated gasoline, applied regionally in this country with nine specific types of reformulated gasoline, has done to the price of gasoline speaks for itself. It is kind of interesting. This article said something to the effect that the media and Dan Rather stated during the July 14 broadcast that, ``Republicans today sided with the oil companies against the Clinton/ Gore administration on the question of who and what is to blame for higher gasoline prices.'' When you invoke this type of mandate on the first of June, you are certainly going to get a reaction from the American public when the price of reformulated gasoline goes up dramatically, particularly in the Midwest. That is what is known around here--and we are no strangers to it--as ``dancing the sidestep.'' Another example of the Clinton/Gore administration's attitude towards energy goes back a little further, when we needed Russia's support--or at least its acquiescence--in NATO's war in Kosovo. There is strong evidence that the administration sought to persuade OPEC to cut production and drive crude oil prices up some 18 months ago. It seems this was done to help Russia, an oil exporter generally badly in need of hard currency, in exchange for its acquiescence--which we got--in NATO's war in Kosovo. Despite the fact that his own administration colluded with OPEC to manipulate prices, our Vice President has called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate oil companies and refiners--for colluding to manipulate prices. I don't know how long that is going to take, but I suspect it is going to take some time for that investigation to be completed. In any event, I find that highly ironic. Here is another example. We have all heard that our Vice President says he wants to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil in the volatile Middle East. But his stated policy is to curtail Federal oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf. We heard him make that statement in Louisiana, that, if elected, he would terminate leases and buy back others. He would also defer any opening of public land in the Rocky Mountain Overthrust Belt in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. He also urged the President to veto a 1995 bill allowing a small sliver of the Alaska Coastal Plain to be opened for oil and gas exploration. That area, I might add, in my State of Alaska, could have enough oil to replace imports of Saudi Arabian oil for the next 30 years. It is estimated the area might contain as much as 16 billion barrels. Of further note, the area known as ANWR has 19 million acres, most of which is already set aside in wilderness. The remaining acreage, 1.5 million acres, is left for Congress to make a determination on. The industry says that out of that 1.5 million acres, oil is in abundance. With the advancement of technology we have in building icy roads in the wilderness, the footprint will be less than 2,000 acres. Clearly, the Clinton-Gore administration will not give us an opportunity to make a determination whether domestically we can reduce our dependence on imported oil and develop this very important resource in my State of Alaska. Over the past 8 years, domestic production in this country has plummeted 17 percent as demand for foreign oil has risen 14 percent. We now depend on foreign oil to supply 56 percent of our needs. The averages of the last few weeks are as much as 64 and 65 percent. However, during the disastrous 1973 Arab oil embargo, we were only 35- percent dependent. Some of my colleagues remember we had gasoline lines around the block. The public was mad. They were upset and blamed the Government. Their rhetoric and policy just doesn't match up. We are now in the year 2000 and we are on average in excess of 56 percent dependent on foreign imports. Our Vice President also says we must increase our use of cleaner- burning natural gas to replace ``dirty coal.'' But his policy is to put the most promising areas for the discovery and production of natural gas off limits to exploration. I refer to another quote he made October 22 at a campaign appearance in Rye, NH. Our Vice President said: I will do everything in my power to make sure there is no new drilling, even in areas of the OCS already leased by previous administrations. This is yet another example of what folks find confusing. Our Vice President, in his book, ``Earth in the Balance,'' wrote: Mining inffluent must return to the Earth as pure as they came. But did you know that the Vice President, with his family, certainly don't follow this practice, pocketing $20,000 a year in mining royalties from the zinc mine on his Carthage, TN, property. He has pocketed $500,000 over the past 25 years. Considering this zinc mine has contaminated the banks of the Caney Fork River with heavy metal-- that is in this general area. This is the Caney Fork River. This is the area that is concentrated with pollutants from the leaching field. This is the actual area where the mines are. This is the leaching field. This is the Gore complex above. They have had violations of clean water standards from time to time. It is clear that the mine does not meet standards set forth in the Vice President's book. I am sure however, that the royalty checks got cashed. This is a picture that appeared in the June 30 Wall Street Journal cover article of this particular mine and the activities associated with it. I ask unanimous consent the article from the Wall Street Journal of June 30 be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, it is not my desire to criticize somebody because they own a mine or have a resource interest, but there is a certain criticism when one recognizes the reality that this mine is hardly a model for anyone, based on the number of violations that have been filed in Tennessee over an extended period of time on this particular mine. We know the Vice President has been critical of some; namely George W. Bush, for his close ties to big oil. In fact, the Vice President's family has close historical ties to Occidental Petroleum and shares in that company which, in its public disclosure, is valued between $500,000 to $1 million. Occidental Petroleum plans to drill in the ancestral lands of over 5,000 U'wa Indians in the Colombia rain forest. They threatened suicide if Occidental goes forward with its plans. I ask unanimous consent an article from the June 26 Washington Times that substantiates that allegation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. We have heard that the Vice President and the administration tried to stop drilling in Alaska with expressions of concern for the G'wichin Indians, some of which reside in Alaska, and others which reside in Canada. But has he spoken out for the U'was in Colombia? Is there an inconsistency here? On the one hand, he allows, and evidently ignores, the drilling in the Colombia rain forest on leases owned by Occidental Petroleum, and he seems to have no objection. But in an area the G'wichin Indians in Alaska depend on for subsistence, a significant area which is in the purview of the Senate to make decisions for opening, he does not support oil and gas exploration. My point is, there is an inconsistency here. The weight of their policy as it twists and reinvents itself is a mystery to me as I try to summon a clear vision of their intent. His beliefs are a confusing world of images and contradictions. I suspect it might be difficult for others, as well.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following technical corrections at the desk to various amendments to the Agriculture appropriations bill be adopted.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am also going to take the opportunity to address an issue that some time ago my Committee on Energy and Natural Resources asked the General Accounting Office to provide a detailee to conduct a preliminary inquiry into payments made by the Project On Government Oversight to two Federal officials. The Project On Government Oversight is known as ``POGO.'' This report was received by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. It was prepared by Paul Thompson, the detailee from the General Accounting Office. It is dated July 2000. There is no question in my mind after reviewing this that the inspector general of the Department of the Interior should be required to review this report and respond to our Committee. I think it is fitting that the Attorney General, Janet Reno, address and resolve some of the questions that are raised by the inquiry. Let me share some of them. I read as follows from the report of the POGO on July 2000. Conclusions It appears that POGO paid the two Federal officials in connection with their activities to influence the Department toward taking actions and adopting policies that, among other things, (a) directly and indirectly assisted POGO in a project involving matters in which these two individuals were substantially involved as Federal employees and that led to POGO's filing of a lawsuit through which it and the two officials received substantial sums of money and stand to receive potentially millions of dollars more, and (b) benefited the professional and business interests of POGO's chairman and a client of his law firm. The circumstances associated with the payments raised the possibility that the Department of the Interior's development of the policy underlying the new oil royalty regulations may have been improperly influenced by expectations or understandings of the officials that they could personally benefit from using their positions as Federal employees to assist POGO and two of its principals. The officials were substantially involved in key stages of the Department's policy development process in ways that served the interests of the POGO's chairman and its executive director. Whether the payments and circumstances under which they were made could serve to erode confidence in the Department's administration of the royalty management program is a well grounded concern. Madam President, the entire transcript of the committee report on POGO, prepared for the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is available from the committee's website at http://www.energy.senate.gov.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, when the Senate convenes at 9:30 a.m., the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. As a reminder to all Senators, cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill and on the motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization bill earlier today. Therefore, under the rule, those votes will occur 1 hour after the Senate convenes on Wednesday.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Further, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, the time from 9:30 a.m. until 11 a.m. be designated for Senators to make statements in memory of our dear friend, the late Senator Paul Coverdell.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Under the provisions of S. Res. 341, statements made on Thursday or prior to Thursday in regard to our colleague's death will be bound and given to Mrs. Coverdell.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 25. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or his designee, 9:30 to 10 a.m.; Senator Thomas or his designee, 10 to 10:30 a.m.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing regarding Natural Gas Supply previously scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Tuesday, July 25 at 9:30 a.m. has been postponed until Wednesday, July 26 at 9:30 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Dan Kish at (202) 224-8276 or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-4756. committee on indian affairs

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, July 20, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has been rescheduled. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony from representatives of the U.S. General Accounting Office on their investigation of the Cerro Grande Fire in the State of New Mexico, and from Federal agencies on the Cerro Grande Fire and their fire policies in general. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 27, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510- 6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Kevin Clark of the Committee staff at (202) 224-6969. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Public Management