Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, before the distinguished visitor entered the Chamber, and before the vote and the statements were made by the Senators from Wyoming concerning their nominee, I was discussing problems in relation to the Alaska natural gas pipeline. I think it is something on which the Senate ought to concentrate because we are clearly going to have to have a gas pipeline to bring to market the gas which was reinjected into the ground as Prudhoe Bay oil was produced. To bring that to market--50 to 70 trillion cubic feet of gas--we need a pipeline 3,000 miles long, gathering pipelines up to 1,500 miles long. We are now in the position where there are only two steel mills in the world that are capable of delivering this steel pipe as it is designed. Before the vote, I outlined the number of jobs that we have lost in the steel industry and the situation with the American steel industry. For this gas pipeline, we need 5.2 million tons of steel. We need $3 to $5 billion in steel orders. We cannot get that steel unless the U.S. steel industry gets back on its feet. So for that reason, I started to think about how we could use some of the cashflow from the development of ANWR to start the process of the gas pipeline. As we examined that, we found the problem was not the steel industry as much as it was the rights of those who have been employed by the steel industry to have their medical care maintained. And that promise was a benefit that was agreed to many years ago for the contribution these workers had made to the military and civilian infrastructure of the country. It is, as I understand it, a potential lien against the steel industry as a whole. We need to find some way to prevent these retirees from losing their health care coverage so that it will not be a lien against the assets of the steel industry as it tries to undergo consolidation now. The consolidation must be done if we are going to have the steel necessary to build the Alaska pipeline to bring our gas down to somewhere in the Midwest. I was commencing to tell the Senate about two messages that I received today from a great friend whom I think is one of the most capable engineers in the oil and gas industry, particularly with regard to the pipelines and their design. As I said, he told me there are only two steel mills in the world that are currently capable of delivering this pipe. He further told me that the pipe will require one-half of the world's capability to produce the pipe during the period of this order. If the producers restart their work on this project this year, it would take until 2010 or 2011 for the gas to actually be delivered to our Midwest--9 years from now. There is over 18 months of work required to complete the design so that it would be possible to order the pipe. For orders placed in 2003, the last pipe materials would be delivered to the field in 2007. That would enable the gas, if everything else goes well, to start being delivered in 2010, as I said. Now, we have linked these issues together because of both the funding standpoint and the impact on national security and because of our absolute need for steel to build our gas pipeline. Opening up the North Slope of Alaska to the drilling in what we call the 1002 area will bring a cash bid in 2003 and 2005. We propose to make some of that money available to initiate the process of rebuilding the industry and taking the first steps to assure that the legacy fund of the steelworkers and the coal workers would be made whole. Madam President, many people have argued with me about this. The House bill put money into the conservation account. An interesting thing about it is, if the amendment we have is defeated, the oil industry will not proceed, the steel industry will not proceed, the natural gas pipeline will not proceed, but not one of these radical environmentalists will lose their health care coverage. The American steel retirees are going to be the ones who pay the price in the long run. I received a second message from my friend just before I came back to the Chamber, and that is that 30 percent of the pipeline materials will need to be delivered to the site by 2005, with the remainder to be delivered in 2007, as I said. I did not realize the steel chemistry for pipelines of this size has never been used. It will be what we call an X80-plus steel pipeline. If the project proceeds in the first year, some of the pipe material needed to be manufactured will need to be tested for weldability and for fracture and burst analysis to assure the material chemistry in the pipe is correct. The timing and cost of all of this is critical to the pipeline project. In addition to the pipeline pipe, there is a huge amount of normal steel materials required for compressor stations and the largest processing plant ever to be built. The Alaska natural gas pipeline should be called the ``Full Employment Project for 10 Years,'' maybe 15 years. It will require every person who is capable of working on such an endeavor in the United States and Canada for a period of over 8 years. It will not be built unless we realize the preliminaries must be completed before this pipeline can be built. It will bring down to what we call the South 48 the equivalent of a million barrels of oil a day, but it will be natural gas--high pressure gas pipeline, 52 inches in diameter, 1-inch thick. I find it very interesting that as I talk about this subject, the commentators in the newspapers and whatnot say this is just a lot of baloney. These people are trying to link two subjects together. These are two subjects that have no individual answer. At the present time, we don't have 60 votes on the amendment to allow the drilling to commence in the 1002 area. We know that. But the steelworkers and coal miners have no other cashflow either. They can't look for another source of money to meet their needs for at least 30 years. There are over 600,000 of them, and our proposal would start a cashflow from this new oil brought into our market. And it is money that is payable for the bidding process and from royalties on this oil that would help the steelworkers, the coal workers, and the industry to reconstruct itself. We have been criticized about this all too often. I see my good friend standing here in the Chamber who might take umbrage at this. But during the time I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we provided $17 billion for American farmers for emergency purposes because of failures in various parts of the agricultural industry. That was in addition to hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent by the Department of Agriculture in the same period. What do you think that money was used for? It was used to pay for the bills on the John Deere tractors. It was used to pay for the farmers' health insurance. It was used to pay for the cost of the agricultural community to survive during bad times. These are bad times for the steel industry. There is not one bit of steel in my State. We have half the coal of the United States, but we do not have any steel. We have raised a question of trying to find an answer to the steel problem because of our own interest in the steel industry in the future. If there is no steel industry in the United States, we will not have an Alaska natural gas pipeline for years and years. I see no reason why we should be afraid to marry two subjects that, if the supporters of each would get together, we would succeed. The radical environmentalists of this country have overwhelmed the Congress. In 1980, my State faced the problem of a proposal to withdraw 104 million acres of Alaska for Alaska national interest lands. That is what the name of the act was, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. In 1978, my former colleague, Senator Gravel, had blocked that bill in the final minutes of that session, that Congress that ended in 1978. By the end of 1980, we were at the place where there was a bill, but we said we would not support it, could not support it, unless we had the right to explore in the 1002 area, which is known to contain the largest reservoir in the North American Continent. And in a compromise entered into in good faith between those of us who represented Alaska and Senators Jackson and Tsongas, we got a bill passed which authorized the future drilling in this area and provided an environmental impact statement that showed there would be no adverse impact on the area. Twice the Congress has passed such an amendment and twice President Clinton vetoed it. Now President Bush, knowing the international situation as it is, has said he wants this area opened to oil and gas exploration. We are trying to carry that load of getting the approval requested by the President of the United States. It is in the House bill, but it is not in this bill. I find it very hard to represent a State such as mine, a new State. I have been in the Senate for all but 9 years that Alaska has been a member of the Union. The one absolute agreement, absolute agreement that we worked on for 7 years was the agreement to assure that this area would be explored for its oil and gas potential. When I was in the Department of the Interior during the Eisenhower administration, I helped prepare the order to create the Arctic National Wildlife Range. At that time there was no question that range was created, and it was specifically stated that oil and gas exploration could continue in that area, subject to stipulations to protect the fish and wildlife. When we got to this bill, the so-called ANILCA bill, the Alaska Natural Interest Lands Conservation Act, we had the proposal to withdraw all of this land, and the House of Representatives, in its bill, closed this area to oil and gas exploration. The only basic change that we made in that bill, as it came out of the Senate, the only basic change that was absolutely demanded by the State of Alaska and all of us who were elected to represent the State of Alaska--both the State legislature, the Governor, and the three of us in the congressional delegation--was that area had to be available for exploration. Senator Jackson, chairman of the committee; Senator Tsongas, author of the substitute; agreed to amend that bill to allow for the exploration and development of the oil and gas potential, and those in the Chamber now who challenge that are leading the fight to break a commitment that was made to a sovereign State. It was made to us as a State that the area would be available for exploration if we did not oppose any further the proposal to withdraw 104 million acres of land for national purposes in our State. People say, why are you exercised about that? Our whole rights as a State were put aside until that issue was settled. The Alaskan people were entitled to select lands for the public land as part of our statehood act; the Native people were entitled to select lands in settlement of their claims. Over 150 million acres of Alaska to be selected to benefit Alaskans in the future, it all was put aside until those 104 million acres were set aside. The only thing we asked out of the 104 million acres was the right to explore this area, 1.5 million acres on the Arctic coast. That agreement was made. There are people here in the Senate who voted for it who now tell us they are not going to vote to allow that exploration to take place. It is enough to strain anybody's conscience, and my conscience is strained because of the fact that I agreed to that proposition. I agreed to it. I believed in the system. I believed that once Congress made a commitment in law, signed by the President of the United States, it would be binding even on future Senators. Apparently, it is not. I warn all Senators, don't trust the Senate. Don't trust a commitment that is made by your colleagues. Don't trust an agreement that you make with the Federal Government. Unless we can get this area opened, there is no way I will trust a future agreement that is made here in the Senate Chamber with regard to future activity. I will insist that anything that benefits my State must be done now, not dependent on future Congresses in order to carry it out. This is an unfortunate situation as far as I am concerned. I have not said the last. Let me put this back up so people will see it again. Madam President, this is the introduction to section 1002, the Jackson-Tsongas amendment, December 2, 1980. It specifically set forth the agreement we had made: The purpose of this section is to provide for a comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and production, and to authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish and wildlife and other resources. That is the situation. That is the Coastal Plain, 1.5 million acres, part of the original Arctic Wildlife Range. That has never been wilderness. The balance of the wildlife range is wilderness, but the additions of the wildlife range are not wilderness. This is a concept-- I really don't know how to deal with it other than to say this was a basic negotiated compromise between the State of Alaska and the people of the United States. We were assured that the area would be open. Now, that little red dot there on the chart represents the amount of land we have agreed we would be limited to as we go into production-- 2,000 acres of a million and a half acres is what we are asking to be able to explore. We know where to drill now. The seismic work was authorized by the 1980 act and has been done. We are ready to drill now. There is oil production right outside of that ANWR area. This is the Prudhoe Bay area here and this is Kuparuk Field. This is essential to our national security. At the time of the Persian Gulf war, that Trans- Alaska pipeline, going from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, carried 2.1 billion barrels of oil a day. Now it carries 950,000 a day. We make up the difference by importing the oil from Iraq. As we buy the oil from Iraq, Saddam Hussein sends $25,000 to the families of every one of the suicide bombers. We are paying for the terrorism that comes from Iraq because we continue to import oil that we could produce ourselves. We know there is oil there. The problem is, not only do we know there is oil there, but also in this big field up here, as we produce the oil, there is associated gas. There is 50 trillion to 70 trillion cubic feet of gas there that we want to bring down to the 48 contiguous States. This chart will show where it will go. There are two routes proposed. This green line is the route. It is traversing a corridor that will come down the Alaska Highway and across into Canada and then to the Chicago area. That is 3,000 miles, and 1,500 miles of gathering pipelines in the area. There is no question that this gas is absolutely needed for our future. What is the key to that future? I am back where I started. The key is steel. If we don't have steel, we cannot build a pipeline. If the steelworkers don't get that legacy fund fixed, there will not be a consolidation of steel that will make a difference for us. We need the steel industry to come back into its own and for them to be able to deliver their portion of this steel. It will take half of the world's production for a period of 7 to 10 years to build that gas pipeline. That is why we are suggesting that we marry up the needs of the steel industry and our needs, as the State that wants to pursue development of that oil in the 1002 area, the million and a half acres. I think we should do things in the national interest. I am sad to say that it increasingly looks as if it is not going to happen. We are still going to persevere and try to continue to convince people what would be the right and just thing to do here. But, above all, I hope every Senator will examine their conscience and answer the question of whether or not, if a commitment was made to them concerning their State by the United States in a law enacted by the Congress, suggested by two colleagues in the Senate, what would their attitude be if when the time came to validate that agreement, the Senate refused to do so? I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent I regain the floor after the vote.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, apparently, there are people who believe that we are cynical in raising the question of the rights of the steelworkers and coal workers to their medical costs, and some attempt to find a cash stream that will help in making the transition for the steel industry as it is consolidated. I want the Senate to know that the motivation for thinking about steel and the steelworkers came from the provisions in the House bill H.R. 4, that contains ANWR, that allocated a portion of the bid moneys from the opening of ANWR to some conservation objectives. We looked at this problem and decided there were some moneys that could be used and what should be used as far as stimulating the future of our own State. The Alaska gas pipeline is the real focal point of our future development. ANWR is an addition--that is, the drilling in the 1002 area on the Arctic coast, that million and a half acres there--and is the immediate objective. But the long-term objective is to find a way to transport the natural gas that has been reinjected into the ground since 1968. As oil was produced in the Arctic, the natural gas was separated and it was reinjected into the ground. We know there is in excess of 50 trillion cubic feet of gas there--maybe 75 trillion cubic feet of gas. But the point is, as one who is interested in national security, I believe there are three major industries in this country of great concern to us in time of national problems of a military nature or security nature. One is agriculture; the second is oil; and then there is steel. When we look at the steel industry, it is the real backbone of our manufacturing infrastructure. But it has huge challenges right now, including dumping from overseas producers, and high internal costs have caused bankruptcies. Over 30 steel companies in this country have entered bankruptcy since the year 2000. That has impacted 60,000 workers. These 30-plus companies represent more than 21 percent of the domestic steel-producing industry. In 1980, there were more than 500,000 U.S. steelworkers. By 2000, the number of steelworkers fell to 224,000. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that this number will fall to 176,000 by the end of this decade. That would be a 22-percent reduction in steel-related jobs. Domestic steel shipments were down 14 percent in the first quarter of 2001. In the last 3 years alone, 23,000 steel jobs have been lost. Those who remain employed in the industry help pay for a portion of the 6,000 retirees and their benefits. Those benefits represent a promise that was made to previous workers for their contribution to building America's military-civilian infrastructure. Our steel industry must undergo consolidation now, but it can only take place if the existing cost structures are addressed. That primarily means taking care of the health care costs for retirees. Failure to address that issue will not only impact retirees, it threatens current workers who are faced with the prospect of more mill closings and more lost jobs. Forty-seven percent of the steelworkers are unemployed in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. Forty-five percent of the steel jobs relate directly to production. Consolidation is an absolute must if we are to protect those jobs and failure to address this issue impacts steel States. Why should I be interested in steel? One is defense, as I said. Steel is required to build tanks, fighters, transport planes, helicopters, ships, missiles, and other military items. During hearings in the House and Senate last month, Robert Miller, chairman and CEO of Bethlehem Steel, testified on the problems of the steel industry. He told Senators integrated producers provide the highest quality steel for steel applications. Bethlehem Steel is the only domestic company with the capacity to provide the special steel plate that was required to repair the U.S.S. Cole. Unfortunately, Bethlehem Steel is currently in chapter 11, about ready to go into chapter 7 bankruptcy. What are we going to do for sales for our military ships if we lose our own domestic steel production? Our interest is in the gas pipeline. Alaska's natural gas pipeline will be over 3,000 miles long, almost as long as the Great Wall of China. It will be the most expensive project financed by private capital in the history of man. It will be totally privately financed. The gas pipeline requires over 3,000 miles of 52-inch pipe that cannot be made in the United States at the present time. It requires an additional 2,000 miles of gathering pipelines and production facilities. It will take 5.2 million tons of steel. It will take $3 billion to $5 billion in steel orders. That cannot be done by the United States steel industry today. They cannot even hope to participate in the building of that pipeline. They will not participate unless the issue of the health care costs for retired employees is settled. Just this morning I had a notice from a friend of mine who told me this: Presently, there are only two steel mills in the world that are capable of delivering the pipe needed for our pipeline as it is presently designed. The design will require one-half of the world's capability to produce pipe during the period of its construction. If the producers start work on the project this year, it would take until 2010 or 2011 for gas to actually reach the U.S. market. There are over 18 months of work required to complete enough of the design and permitting prior to ordering the pipe. For orders placed in 2003, the pipe materials would be delivered in the year 2007.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am once again before the Senate because of the situation regarding the ANWR amendment which will be presented to the Senate next week. We are not on the energy bill now. I have spoken briefly twice this week on energy and its relationship to the possible development of the 1.5 million acres on the Arctic Plain. We call it the 1002 area. Some people call it ANWR. ANWR is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. During the period I was in the Interior Department in the sixties, the Arctic National Wildlife Range was created. That range was 9 million acres. It specifically provided that oil and gas leasing under stipulations to protect the fish and wildlife could proceed in that 9 million acres. The area that is now within the 1002 area was a portion of that 9 million acres. I have a chart to show that. It is a very interesting history. In the original area of the 9 million acres, there is the coastal plain of the 1002 area which is an area set aside by an amendment offered by Senators Jackson and Tsongas. I will talk about that later. It is 1.5 million acres. The remainder of that original Arctic wildlife range is now totally wilderness. In 1980, there was an addition to the wildlife area in the Arctic. It is refuge, but it is not wilderness. So there are now, because of the act of 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 19 million acres in this Arctic area. It is, in fact, the Arctic wildlife refuge. The part that is not refuge yet is the 1002 area which is specifically, because of the Jackson-Tsongas amendment, available for oil and gas leasing following that basic act. I have to confess to the Senate and to anyone who might be interested in watching this presentation, I have not been sleeping well lately. I have spent almost 34 years in the Senate, and I remember only one other night that I did not sleep, and that was with regard to the time recently when a very great and dear friend of mine passed away, and I was chiding myself because I had not seen enough of him and found I did not sleep. Since I have been back from the trip to the Asian regions of the Pacific with my great friend, Senator Inouye, during the last recess, I have been trying to concentrate on the subject of the possible oil and gas development in Alaska, not only the oil potential of the 1002 area but also the Alaska natural gas pipeline. At the time that oil was discovered in 1968 in the great Prudhoe Bay area, which is on State lands and did not require Federal permission to start oil was discovered there in enormous quantities. At the time of the discovery, the wells came in somewhere around 500,000 to 1 million barrels a day. The great environmental organizations--I call them the radical environmental organizations--opposed the building of the Alaska oil pipeline. As a matter of fact, that pipeline was delayed for over 4 years by litigation brought by these radical groups trying to prove everything from we were going to kill the caribou to we were going to destroy the area. They have alleged since that time that this area which we call the 1002 area is wilderness. Wilderness is a word of art in our State because we have more wilderness in our State than all the rest of the United States put together. This area that was set up in the fifties by the Secretary of the Interior and then approved by President Eisenhower was originally set up at the request of the Fairbanks Women's Garden Club. Fairbanks was my first home in Alaska, and that area was set aside in response to their request that there be some area designated in which the interests of the fish and wildlife of the Arctic area would be protected, but they specifically--specifically--excepted from that protection the concept of oil and gas leasing subject to consideration of stipulations that would, in fact, be required to protect fish and wildlife should there be oil and gas development. Prudhoe Bay is in the area of State lands, and this is Federal land. As the President realized at the time we obtained statehood, we obtained the right to select lands. All other States of the Union had the right on public lands to take sections 16 and 36 out of every township. They selected those lands as they were surveyed. With an area such as Alaska, which is one-fifth the size of all the United States, 20 percent of all the lands of the United States and half of the Federal lands are in the State of Alaska. We determined we could not wait for surveying and asked Congress, and did receive, the right to select lands which were then to be surveyed out--not the whole State to be surveyed but our selection to be surveyed out. Subsequently, our native people received in 1971 the right to, again, select lands to satisfy their settlement of the Alaska Native land claims in the Settlement Act of 1971 of some 40 million acres outright, and additional areas were represented by their traditional burial grounds and traditional lands. So it adds up to about 45 million acres that the Alaska Natives selected. We are in the process now of trying to relate all of this to the American public so they will ask their Senators to support what we want to do, and that is to open this 1002 area now--as it was committed to us in 1980 would be done--to oil and gas exploration and development. To get this all into context, this chart shows our State of Alaska imposed upon the United States using the same scale. Normally, when one looks at the State of Alaska at the top of the North American maps, they see Alaska just a little place up at the top where people think that has to be a small place. Actually, it goes from the east coast to almost the west coast and almost from Duluth down into the middle of Texas. It is a concept of space that most people do not realize, almost three times the size of Texas. My old friend, Senator Tower from Texas, used to say he was afraid we might iron the place out and it would be as big as the whole country because there are a lot of mountains up there. This is a route of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline which was the subject of action by the Senate in 1968. This is the ANWR outline with the 1002 area in green, and the area we seek to develop is right up there. Two thousand acres out of the 1.5 million acres will be developed according to the bill passed by the House authorizing us to proceed with oil and gas exploration in ANWR. The problem I have been talking about all week is we face a different circumstance than we did in 1973 when we sought to get the oil and gas pipeline completed. It had been, as I said, subject to litigation for a series of years and we determined we had to get legislative authorization to proceed. My great and good friend and mentor, Senator Jackson of Washington, was the chairman of the Senate Interior and Indian Affairs Committee, and he was the author of the Right of Way Act to amend the rights of way provisions to cross Federal lands for utilities and pipelines. We encouraged him to include a provision to authorize the construction of the oil and gas pipeline, and to permit its immediate initiation. During that period of time, as a matter of fact, Senator Jackson sent out a letter--and I will have that put on everyone's desk on Monday. It was signed by himself and Senator Hatfield--urging that the views expressed by these extreme radical environmentalists be ignored because of the great necessity to have that oil because it was a matter of national security. This is a poster of General Eisenhower back during World War II where he called attention to the Petroleum Industry War Council. There were some people leaving their work in the oilfields and enlisting in the Army, and General Eisenhower, to his great credit, sent this message: Your work is vital to victory . . . Our ships . . . Our planes . . . Our tanks must have oil. He was then the supreme commander of our expeditionary force and he said, ``Stick to your job. Oil is ammunition.'' We are at war again, and the same radical environmentalists are now opposing us moving out into another area of Alaska to explore for oil and gas. It is within this 1002 area. In 1980, I had long and serious discussions with two great Senators. This is the photo taken of Senator Jackson, Senator Tsongas, and myself, standing outside in the hall, discussing the amendment that had been agreed to, that I agreed to support, that my colleague opposed, in order to settle the dispute over the Alaskan National Interest Conservation Lands Act. That 1002 provision was authored by these two Senators. As I said last week, God would that they would still be alive. We would not be having these arguments because they were men of their word. They gave us their commitment. My State, my colleague and I, had opposed the Alaskan National Interest Conservation Lands Act because of the original provisions in the House bill that would have prohibited oil and gas development in the 1002 area. They crafted the amendment that gave us the chance to proceed to develop oil and gas in that area, provided there was an environmental impact statement filed, approved by the Secretary of Interior and the President which then had to be approved by Congress, which then had the job of authorizing proceeding with oil and gas development in that area. It was 1980 that we received that commitment. At the time of that commitment, we thought this would proceed in a year or two. As a matter of fact, the first environmental impact statement was made during the first Reagan administration. President Reagan asked Congress to approve it. Congress did not act. Then they ordered another environmental impact statement, and the President asked Congress to approve it. It did not. Subsequently, during the Clinton administration, Congress initiated two acts, primarily at my request, to approve an environmental impact statement and direct the administration to commence oil and gas leasing activity in this area. President Clinton vetoed those bills. So we are now, 21 or 22 years later, based on the act of 1980, still trying to see that the commitment made to Alaska, as part of the condition for withdrawing almost 100 million acres of Alaska--which, incidentally, came ahead of the State selections, ahead of the Native selections. The only concession we could get out of the whole situation that made any sense was the 1002 area, which we knew was our future. I was just home to Alaska twice in the last 2 weeks, and I have to report that my State is in dire trouble. Our timber mills have been closed down. Our pulp mills are closed down. All our major mines are closed down. There is no wildcat oil and gas activity in our State at all. Even the number of cruise ships that come to Alaska has been limited now by action of the Federal Government. Our future is still in resources. Half of the coal of the United States is in Alaska. None of it can be reached because of an act of Congress. That act of Congress provided that in order to have the right to develop the coal of Alaska, an operator would have to restore the natural contour. Well, that coal is found in areas of ice lenses and extreme cover of ice and water. Obviously, when coal is strip-mined, there is a hole. The original contour cannot be restored. That provision was added to a bill one day, over my great objection, and has prevented the development of any new coal mines in Alaska since that time. Our oil is in the Arctic. It is not only in our State. We have the one in Canada, too. If we look at the map of the Arctic of the world, that is where most of the oil is, up near the Arctic Circle and above the Arctic Circle. We have the vast areas where oil in tremendous quantities has been found. We believe within the area covered by 1002--I did not mention that was a 7-year fight; from 1973 to 1980 we fought to try to preserve the right to develop this area. But this is a historic oil and gas activity in the Canadian area. This is adjacent to us. Our wells are in the Prudhoe Bay area, very few of them. These are the Canadian oil wells all over in this area, including the area of the Porcupine caribou herd. The Porcupine caribou herd is a Canadian herd. It is not an Alaskan herd. It comes into Alaska once a year, most of the time, and comes up during the calving period. It is not during the mating period but the calving period. The calves have been dropped up in this area, not in the 1002 area but in the area along the plain. There have been sometimes when they have gone into the 1002 area and there have also been times in recent years they have not come at all. One of the reasons for that is the path the caribou wanders through Canada. In Canada, caribou is not a game animal; it is a domestic animal. They can harvest as many as they want. These caribou can be harvested in Canada. The numbers are going down, no question, but not because of interference on our slope. To the contrary, the central caribou herd--around the land of the pipeline--has increased in size and is almost four to five times in number as before. The western caribou herd is not migrating anymore and is out toward Wainwright, AK. This map shows the withdrawal areas I mentioned. The areas are in the withdrawal land before the State of Alaska was granted statehood and before the Natives got their land. These lands were set aside in 1980 by an act of Congress. One of the conditions in our favor was that we can explore that little area up there in the 1002 area. The western herd of caribou is out here. They could not migrate anymore. The central caribou herd has increased enormously, so has the western. It is the Porcupine herd that is reduced in numbers, but there is no oil and gas activity now that has caused that. We keep hearing we caused that, but there is no oil and gas activity there. That is caused by hunting and by predators. We now do not have any control over the wolves. Those caribou travel thousands of miles to go to the Arctic area to drop their calves. They are, most of them, pregnant female caribou and are easily killed by wolves. The same people who are trying to prohibit us from oil and gas activity bring on the problems of trying to find some way to reduce the predators that are killing the Porcupine herd. In my time in the Senate, I have taken literally 100 Senators to the North Slope to show them this area. Those are the caribou that do come to the oil and gas area. This is the central caribou herd. I don't care if it is winter or summer, you will find them there. In fact, when we finished the oil pipeline, the university developed a new type of cover for the tundra, and it happens to be a very great favorite of the caribou. We have the oil industry replant that whole area with the new vegetation. It is tremendous food for them. In passing, it is not just caribou that like the pipeline. The pipeline is like a paved highway. Did you know oil coming from the ground in Alaska is hot? If you go near the pipeline, you are walking on a nice, warm sidewalk. The bears like it. We have great fondness for our wildlife. Alaskans go out of their way to make sure industrial activity does not harm our fish and wildlife. Returning to the 1980 act, if you want my history lesson for the day, when I was assistant leader, I sat here night after night and listened to the history lessons, as I call them, of the distinguished President pro tempore, Senator Byrd, chairman of our committee. I wish God had given me the prodigious memory he has. I don't have that kind of memory, but I like history lessons and I am trying to give one now. In 1978, a year I was up for reelection, we had this act before us, the Alaska National and Lands Conservation Act. In 1978, just before the election, that bill had been brought out of conference and I had agreed to support it. My colleague was opposed to it. At the very last minute, Senator Gravel objected to that bill proceeding until the bill itself was read. An adjournment resolution had already been entered so, in effect, that request killed the bill. Following that, I might add, I went back home to try to start getting ready again for consideration of this bill, and riding with my wife and five other people in a chartered jet we crashed going into Anchorage. My wife Ann was killed and all the passengers, other than myself and one other passenger, were killed. Those people killed were the head of what we called the Citizens for Management of Alaska Land. We were trying to raise funds to, once again, present our position to the Congress in the period of 1979 and 1980. By 1980 we had developed this bill after long arguments and meetings with my great friends, Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas. Senator Jackson was chairman at the time. Section 1002, the Jackson-Tsongas amendment started with: The purpose of this section is to provide for a comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and production, and to authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish and wildlife and other resources. Those conditions were met. Two environmental impacts were followed. There was a period of seismic activity that went on in the 1980s. We all know the largest reservoir that could contain oil or gas on the North American continent is beneath the 1002 area. There is no question about that. That is a scientific fact. When we get to the period of time when we try to look at this development, we are often told you can proceed without this. This is, again, now moving over to the Prudhoe Bay oilfields, not just one but several now. This is Kuparuk, further to the west, Prudhoe Bay, and the Sourdough Oil field, a small field adjacent to ANWR. We have within the 1002 area the village of Kaktovik. They have lands that belong to the Natives, but by order of the administration at the time they got the title to those lands, they were prohibited from drilling on the lands. They said they had to wait until the Congress authorized drilling on the Coastal Plain. So if we pass this bill, they, too, will have the right to proceed to determine their own rights. The oil pipeline goes now from Valdez to Prudhoe Bay. This is the Wainwright area, which is the area of the caribou of the western herd. This is the size of ANWR. It is equal, the refuge itself, to South Carolina. We are not talking about a small piece of land. But the proposed development area in this 1002 area, 1.5 million acres, of 2,000 acres is 3.13 square miles from a State that has 565,000 square miles. We are at wit's end. That is why this Senator is losing some sleep. That 2,000 acres is roughly the size of Dulles Airport. That is what this bill limits us to use. We cannot use more than 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acres set aside in the Oil and Gas Exploration Act. It is not wilderness. I will discuss later the newspapers that keep talking about the wilderness area of ANWR. They are talking about the wilderness area of ANWR where there is no oil and gas activity proposed at all. None at all. I believe one of the great problems we have is to try to deal with the subject without a full explanation. The difficulty that I have right now is in trying to orient myself to the bill. We will file an amendment next week--there has been a lot of gossip about this so I might as well get down to talking about it on the record. Yes, this Senator has been talking to people involved in the steel business, to the steelworkers, to other labor unions, and I have been talking to a great community of this Nation, the Jewish community. All have an interest in the development of this area. I have also been talking to people who are concerned about the Alaskan natural gas line. I will be talking about that soon, too. I thank the Chair for his courtesy on this Friday afternoon. If I don't get this out of me, I won't sleep tonight either. One of the great problems we have been facing is the battles with the press, so let's start with that. Let's start with our own Washington paper. In the past, in 1987 and 1989, this newspaper argued in favor of proceeding with exploration on the Arctic coast. It said: . . . But that part of the Arctic coast is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other place where drilling would have less impact on the surrounding life. . . . . . . That oil could help ease the country's transition to lower oil supplies and . . . reduce its dependence on uncertain imports. Congress would be right to go ahead and, with all the conditions and environmental precautions that apply to Prudhoe Bay, see what's under the refuge's tundra. . . . In 1989 it said: . . . But if less is to be produced here in the United States, more will have to come from other countries. The effect will be to move oil spills to other shores. As a policy to protect the global environment, that's not very helpful. . . . . . . The lesson that conventional wisdom seems to be drawing--that the country should produce less and turn to even greater imports--is exactly wrong. What do we see now? December 25, 2001--nice Christmas present for somebody: Gov. Bush has promised to make energy policy an early priority of his administration. If he wants to push ahead with opening the plain as part of that, he'll have to show that he values conservation as well as finding new sources of supply. He'll also have to make the case that in the long run, the oil to be gained is worth the potential damage to this unique, wild and biologically vital ecosystem. That strikes us as a hard case to make. They made the case in 1987. They made the case in 1989. They are saying George Bush should make it now. Where is the consistency of the Washington Post? What has changed in the Washington Post? The management? They haven't changed any science. They haven't produced any science. Now, in February they said: Is there an energy crisis, and if so, what kind? What part of the problem can the market take care of, and what must Government do? What's the right goal when it comes to dependence on overseas sources? America cannot drill its way out of ties to the world oil market. There may be an emotional appeal to the notion of American energy for the American consumer and a national security argument for reducing the share that imports hold. But the most generous estimates of potential production from the Alaska refuge amount to only a fraction of current imports. That is wrong. They belie the fact that Iraq is currently threatening to withhold exports to us--or really to the international food program that we buy from. In fact, our oil will produce as much as a 30 years' supply from Iraq. Today Iraq sends to every suicide bomber's family $25,000 in cash. If we can believe the reports we got yesterday, even the Saudis have a fund now to pay the costs of education and maintenance for the children of suicide bombers. From where is that money coming? It is coming from the United States. Had Congress listened to President Reagan, had President Clinton not vetoed the bill, we would be producing oil from that area now. At the height of the Persian Gulf war, 2.1 million barrels of oil a day came down from the Alaska oil pipeline. When I was home last week, it was 950,000 barrels. Meanwhile, we are now importing over 1 million barrels a day from Iraq--at least we were until he shut it off. There is no consistency in these national newspapers when they do this. Why should one generation act on the recommendation in 1987 and 1989 and another one be told now that is all wrong? There ought to be some kind of integrity in the Washington Post. The New York Times--an interesting thing, if you follow this. I am not going to do it, follow the transition. When one of these papers changes its mind, the other one changes its mind. This is the New York Times. Then in 1987, 1988, 1989, the same thing. Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . the most promising untapped source of oil in North America. . . . A decade ago, precautions in the design and construction of the 1,000-mile-long Alaska pipeline saved the land from serious damage. If oil companies, government agencies and environmentalists approach the development of the refuge with comparable care, disaster should be avoidable. In 1988 they say the same thing: . . . the total acreage affected by development represents only a fraction of 1 percent of the North Slope wilderness. Again, they call it wilderness. It is not wilderness. . . . But it is hard to see why absolutely pristine preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence over the nation's energy needs. That is the issue today. Should a small group of radical environmentalists block the United States from obtaining another source of oil to lead us toward total dependence on foreign sources? At the time of the oil embargo in the 1973 area, we imported about 35 percent of our oil. Today we are approaching 60 percent. Now they turn around on us, from having supported us through the whole series--1987, 1988, 1989. New York Times, 1989: . . . Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground. . . . The single most promising source of oil in America lies on the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east of the big fields at Prudhoe Bay. . . . Washington can't afford . . . to treat the accident as a reason for fencing off what may be the last great oilfield in the nation. Now they attack my colleague, saying he is wrong in his estimates. They are also saying: The country needs a rational energy strategy . . . but the first step in that strategy should not be to start punching holes in the Arctic Refuge. What happened to the New York Times? Change of management? Yes, another change of management. Maybe they hired one of the radical environmentalists, for all I know. But that is not a national newspaper that deserves any credibility. As far as I am concerned, I have written them off. How can you believe them one year and have them turn around and not tell you what they said before, in 1987, 1988, 1989, is wrong? They didn't even recognize in their own editorials that they had taken those positions so the new young people, reading their paper, don't know about that unless some of us call them to task. Where was the editorial board that was involved in 1987, 1988, and 1989, when this editorial board of the New York Times took a diametrically opposite position? That is not a national paper anymore, as far as I am concerned. It is unworthy of credibility. Beyond that, I might have some long statements about them next week. Mr. President, I don't want to keep you too long, but I do want the world to know that, starting next week, we are going to be on this bill for a long time. When that bill goes in, I am told the leadership perseveres with their attitude--which was not Senator Mike Mansfield's attitude, it was not Senator Jackson's attitude. In 1973, there we had the oil pipeline amendment up--conscious of what President Eisenhower had said, conscious of the approach that all of us had taken up to that time, that oil and the availability of oil to this country is a matter of national security as well as economic security. The leadership now says we must have 60 votes--or we should not even bring up the amendment. I want leadership to know that I don't know that I have 60 votes, and neither does Senator Murkowski. We are going to bring up the amendment and we are going to debate it until we have 60 votes--until we have 60 votes or unless they can get the votes to table our amendment. There is a possibility that could happen. But I want you to know that every steelworker in the country is going to know who denied them their legacy fund. Every coal worker who is going to fall short of the money on their funds under the act of 1992 will know who did that to them. Every member of the Jewish community who now supports the development of ANWR is going to know who denied them what they need. Part of this law extends the right of Israel to receive a portion of the output of the Alaska oil pipeline in the event it is denied oil by its neighbors. Most people do not know that. Years ago that was enacted. It must be renewed now. Our amendment renews that. We support entirely the freedom of Israel. Our State insisted on sharing with Israel our oil as it came out of the pipeline if their oil was shut off. So did the people who buy our oil. The Senate ought to look to the groups who support an energy policy for America. We have American veterans, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans Institute. Catholic War Veterans, organized labor, the Seafarers International Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Maritime Laborers Union, the Operating Engineers Union, the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union, and the Carpenters, Joiners and Builders Trade, the Hispanic Union, the Latin American Latino Coalition, the United States- Mexico Chamber of Commerce, Seniors Coalition, United Seniors Association, every major American Jewish organization, scientist organizations of America, Americans for a Safe Israel, American business communities, National Black Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth. I could go on and on with this list of who supports this. (Mr. INOUYE assumed the chair.) I welcome the occupant of the chair, my great and long-time friend. As I said last night, we will not keep you long. We will have to put in orders, if ANWR produces oil, for 17 new double-hulled tankers. As a result of Exxon Valdez, we decreed in Congress--and the State industries agreed--that all new tankers to serve Alaska must be double-hulled. When this great area starts producing oil, 17 new double-hulled tankers will be built to carry the oil coming out of the Alaska pipeline. The current occupant of the chair didn't see this chart. I want to present it again for his benefit because the two of us served under that great general. This is what he said during World War II to our oil field workers: ``Stick to your job. Oil is ammunition.'' If the leadership followed the precedent set by Mike Mansfield, who opposed the Alaska oil pipeline amendment when there was a tie vote-- they supported the one provision which accelerated the litigation and required immediate construction of the pipeline. Senator Mansfield would not permit a filibuster on the matter involving national security. Senator Jackson was chairman of the committee. And both of them voted against that oil pipeline amendment when it was a tie vote. They did not try to filibuster against that amendment. Had they done so, we undoubtedly would not have the oil pipeline today. If those two great leaders had opposed the one amendment that accelerated the construction of the pipeline, we would never have had an oil pipeline. I believe the situation today is an odd one. I am sad that leadership now perseveres in its statement to us that we must have 60 votes. I close out by saying Alaska Senators are going to try to persevere too. We are going to stay here and the Senate is going to stay here until we get 60 votes next week. I thank the President for his courtesy. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there an order for business following the consideration of the pending legislation?

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for one moment?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, seeing my good friend, the Presiding Officer, and the distinguished whip having made the statement he made, I would like the Record to show that at the time the Senator from Hawaii was fighting for statehood for Hawaii, Hawaii was Republican. At the time I was fighting for statehood for Alaska, Alaska was Democratic. It has changed since the two of us have been here.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been involved in other matters, obviously, as all other Senators are. I understand that, once again, my friend, the minority whip, has mentioned the problem of CAFE and the CAFE standards. We had a discussion on that this morning in relationship to the ANWR problem that we seek to pursue. The Senate has voted twice on the CAFE standards. The first vote was on amendment 2997, and the vote was 62 to 38 to give the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2 years to establish standards. That vote was not filibustered. It did not need 60 votes. It was an up- or-down vote. There was not a motion to table. Neither Senator Murkowski nor I filibustered or threatened to filibuster that issue. The second vote on CAFE was on prohibiting an increase in the average fuel standard for pickup trucks. Amendment No. 2998 passed on a vote of 56 to 44. Again, there was no filibuster on CAFE. It was an up-or-down vote requiring only 51 votes on what my friend, the majority whip, said should be an issue of national security and is an issue of national security. During the debate on the Alaska pipeline, the then-leader, as I pointed out this morning, Senator Mansfield, and Chairman Jackson did not vote for the amendment that authorized the right of way but they did realize it was an issue of national security and it should receive an up-or-down vote. They allowed an up-or-down vote on the Alaska pipeline without filibuster. As a matter of fact, it became a part of the right-of-way bill at that time only by the vote of the then-Vice President breaking a tie in the Senate. In fact, Senator Jackson was so incensed at the thought of a filibuster on an issue he opposed that concerned national security that he threatened to have the Federal Government build the Alaska pipeline itself. At that time he said: Mr. President, I have come to the regretful conclusion that if we are stalled here, early next year I give my pledge that I am going to push legislation for the Federal Government to build this line. It does involve a national crisis. It is urgent, and I shall do everything in my power to move that oil. We did not filibuster the CAFE votes, which the majority says are national security issues. But the majority says the ANWR issue is not a national security issue. I hope the Senate will come to the position that my great, late friend, Senator Mansfield, came to as leader--that there should be no filibuster on an issue involving a matter of national security, something that is seriously involved in the national defense, particularly at this time when the gas price in this city alone has gone up from $1.15 to $1.51 in 3 days. We face a national crisis. It is not dissimilar from the one we faced in the 1970s. And I believe those who oppose getting us to the point where we can determine whether or not we can produce substantial quantities of oil and gas from that million and a half acres, set aside by Congress in 1980 for that exploration and development--we are not drilling in the wildlife refuge. It was set aside and will not become a permanent part of the wildlife refuge until the drilling is over. This chart depicts one of the things we found recently. I want people to see it. That is my commander, General Eisenhower, pictured on this chart. It is a poster that was put up by the Petroleum War Council during World War II. It is a statement to workers in the oil fields. Here is the commanding general of our forces at the time of the invasion of Europe saying to those people in the oil fields: Your work is vital to our victory . . . our ships . . . our planes . . . our tanks must have oil. Stick to your job--oil is ammunition. Our generation knew that oil was related to national security. I don't know how anybody today can say this is not a national security issue when we bring the ANWR issue before the Senate. We should have an up-or-down vote. We should not have to prove we have 60 votes. The reason the amendment is not here is we are trying our best to get 60 votes. If I have anything to do with it, we will find a way to get them, but it should not be required. The requirement should be only that we come to the Chamber and demonstrate it is a national security issue, and that issue should not be subject to a filibuster. I believe those who filibuster against this amendment will be committing a grave error. The American public should know that. Anybody out there who is interested should look at this. This is the National Interest Land Conservation Act of December 2, 1980, section 1002, the Jackson-Tsongas amendment. It says: The purpose of this section is to provide for a comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the impact of oil and gas exploration, development, and production, and to authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on fish and wildlife and other resources. It has been 21 years since that bill was passed. I got this out of my archives, for anybody who is interested. That was one of my favorite photos. That is Senator Scoop Jackson, this is Paul Tsongas, and that is a younger Ted Stevens. Senator Tsongas has in his hand, and I have a copy, the final version that Senator Jackson and I agreed to with regard to that bill in 1980. That 1980 bill gives us the authority to proceed with the exploration in the Coastal Plain. It was the intention of these people--they made a commitment to us that we would be able to proceed with exploratory activity and development in the Arctic Plain, provided there was an environmental impact statement made that showed there would be no adverse impact on the fish and wildlife resources of that Arctic Plain, the million and a half acres set aside for exploration activity by the Tsongas-Jackson amendment. We have twice prepared these statements--twice. It was during the Reagan-Bush administration, and the first Bush administration. The President asked the Congress to approve proceeding on the basis of the finding of those environmental impact statements that there would be no adverse impact by gas exploration and development on the Coastal Plain. But twice the Congress, then under the control of the current majority party, refused to approve that request. During the Clinton administration, twice the Congress sent to President Clinton a bill that would authorize the commencement of this exploration and development activity in the Arctic Plain, and the President vetoed it. So there has been a stalemate now for 21 years. Had we started this development, we would not be under the threat of Iraq today; and had we started this development, we would not be importing from Iraq a million barrels of oil a day. We are sending to Iraq billions of dollars that they are using now to pay stipends to suicide bombers' families. Our money that is buying oil from Iraq is paying the suicide bombers' families. I cannot understand a Senate that would refuse to carry out the existing law that was a commitment made to my State. We are not a very old State, Mr. President. As a matter of fact, I had been here then all but 9 years that Alaska had been a State. This is a basic commitment to the developmental area of Alaska. This was set aside--the first 9 million acres--during the period of time when I was at the Department of the Interior. At that time, it was the Arctic Wildlife Range. The wildlife range was subject to oil and gas development under stipulations to protect the fish and wildlife. It was never closed. It has never been closed to oil and gas development. It is not closed now. The 1980 act did not close this area to oil and gas development. On the contrary, it set aside specifically 1\1/2\ million acres in that 1002 area, the amendment offered by Senators Tsongas and Jackson, as I indicated. I have here a history of the dates of Federal land activities with regard to this area. I want to put them in the Record so that there is a very clear statement that, from 1923 until now, this area has never been closed to oil and gas development. It has never been made part of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge that was closed to such development. It has never been wilderness. There is wilderness in the rest of the refuge, but this is not wilderness. I hear people saying we are proposing to drill in a wilderness area every day. That is not true. I ask unanimous consent this statement of select dates and Federal public land history in Alaska be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. I am perfectly willing at any time to start the debate on ANWR. I prefer to start it when we know we can have an up-or-down vote. We had one on CAFE. We opposed that. I opposed that. I said at the time one of the reasons I did is I come from a State where every person who has a car has an SUV. Until they show me they are not going to outlaw them, we cannot support that. We can support reasonable restrictions on the use of automobiles that will lead us to have some savings, but savings doesn't produce oil. Oil is a lot more than gasoline, by the way. As I have repeatedly told people, everything from frisbees to panty hose comes out of the barrel of oil, in addition to gasoline. It is time we got down to discussing this amendment. But it ought to be discussed in a manner in which the national security issue is considered. Oil is a national security item for this country--more right now than at any other time except in the 1970s when we had an embargo. We are as near to an embargo as we have been since that time. As I said yesterday, I think we are very close to embargo now. Mr. President, the question of what happens to a barrel of oil has been very interesting. I showed this to the Senate some time ago. These are the items made from oil: Toothpaste, footballs, ink, lifejackets, tents, dyes, balloons, cameras, cranes, vitamin capsules, soft contacts, panty hose, fertilizer, photographs, roofing material, compact discs, shaving cream, perfumes, umbrellas, golf balls, aspirins, house paint, lipstick, dentures, glue, clothing, deodorant. Thousands of products come from oil. People keep talking about CAFE standards being able to produce savings and lead to somebody having oil--no, they are talking about gasoline. A barrel of oil is what we are talking about. We produce oil, the gasoline is produced in refineries in the south 48. Let me add this. One barrel of oil makes 44.2 gallons of economic essentials. Everyday products consume 56 percent, such as those I have mentioned. Gasoline takes 44 percent of the barrel. During the time of the Persian Gulf war, at my request, as a matter of fact, the oil industry increased the throughput to 2.1 million barrels a day. When I was home last week, there were 950,000 barrels a day going through the pipeline. Do you know why? The reserves are going down. It is uneconomic to produce at the rate we used to because reserves are going down--our reserves over in the Arctic Plain. If we had that producing now, we would not be buying a million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. The only reason he can use oil as a weapon now is we have decreased the throughput in the Alaskan pipeline. When it was running at full tilt, that pipeline carried, as I said, 2.1 million barrels a day. That was 25 percent of the domestic oil produced in the United States. Today we produce about 12 percent of the oil produced in the United States because we have been unable to get in there as was committed to us in 1980, that we would be able to explore and develop the oil and gas in that area, provided there would be no permanent harm to the fish and wildlife in the area. The House bill--it is not before us now--set down a limit of 2,000 acres out of the 1.5 million acres. Only 2,000 acres on the surface can be used for oil and gas development. I hope we can get down to the point where we are discussing reality and we are discussing issues and not the issue of whether we have to have 60 votes. The 60-vote requirement is only a requirement that comes from a leadership decision that a filibuster will be allowed. I wish to God Senator Mansfield was still with us so he could come and say to us why he did what he did. He prohibited a filibuster on the oil pipeline amendment. The same forces were opposed to it then that are opposed to ANWR now. In fact, the ads in the paper look almost the same: caribou, mountains, D-8 Caterpillars. One time I came to the floor after my good friend, Gaylord Nelson, left the Senate and showed the Senate a brochure that came out of the Wilderness Society. It had a picture of a D-8 Caterpillar over the top of a mountain out of a forest looking down with a beautiful lake with caribou, bears, and everything standing around it, and that was purported to be the North Slope. In the first place, there are no trees there. In the second place, all those animals are not there. In the third place, there is nothing there except tundra. There is fish and wildlife, we agree to that. We have had the studies made twice now that there will not be permanent harm to fish and wildlife, particularly the caribou. I invite the majority--let's get a couple planes and fly up there and I will show you that place right now. Oil and gas activity only takes place in the wintertime, not in the summertime. The caribou are there for a maximum of 6 weeks and for 3 of the last 5 years they did not come up there at all. This idea that somehow we are going to ruin anything about my State by allowing this development of oil and gas to continue is absolutely wrong. It is time we came down to the decision that there ought to be an up- or-down vote. I go right back to where we started. The Senate voted twice on CAFE. It was not filibustered by this side. It was not filibustered by this side because we agreed the whole issue of foreign oil dependence and oil availability in this country is a national security issue. I hope the majority party will see fit to recognize that as such before we are through. If we live under the paradigm of getting 60 votes, then I am willing to keep the Senate around until we get 60 votes. It is time we really stood up for this. It is a national issue. It is absolutely necessary, I believe, for the future of this country to have that oil produced. It can be produced and the gas can be produced out of that area. I might also say in passing that this is just a preliminary. We are going from this issue to the natural gas pipeline. The natural gas pipeline will carry gas that has been produced in the process of the production of oil at Prudhoe Bay. Gas was produced with the oil and then it was separated from the oil and reinjected into the ground. We know there are trillions of cubic feet of gas down there because it has been produced and put back in the ground. There has been no transportation mechanism. We are very close to a decision now from the producers and the pipeline companies to bring that gas down to markets in the Midwest. It will be a 3,000-mile pipeline, maybe up to 1,500 miles of gathering pipelines, buried gaslines running through Alaska, through Canada, all the way down into Chicago. It will be the largest project in the history of man financed by private enterprise. It will require over 400,000 workers to complete that project. It will require new trucks, new backhoes, all kinds of new equipment to improve the roads so trucks can run on the roads up in the north country. It is a massive project. The gas pipeline cannot be completed until about 2009. I hope to God I live to see it done. I thank the Chair. Amendments Nos. 3098 through 3102, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 2917

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

Mr. STEVENS. May we see the amendments.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time on this side.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the majority leader and the distinguished majority whip have often mentioned the fact that we have not called up the ANWR amendment yet. I am here to say we are almost ready to do that. The reason we have not brought it forth so far, of course, is the stated objective of Members of the other side of the aisle to filibuster this amendment and to require us to have 60 votes in order for its adoption. We will lay it down right now if the leadership will agree we can have an up-or-down vote on the amendment. This is not a normal procedure where the leader states categorically that there is an intention of the majority to require 60 votes for an amendment to pass. I intend later today to distribute to every desk a copy of a letter of July 3, 1980 that was signed by Senator Henry M. Jackson, chairman of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and Mark Hatfield, ranking minority member, concerning the Alaska lands bill that was before the Senate at that time. These two Senators were leaders of the Senate on the Alaska lands legislation and it is important for the Senate to read this letter. I will read a portion of it at this time. The portion I will read concerns the amendment which gives us the right to proceed with development of the Arctic plain. They wrote: While the bill is a gigantic environmental accomplishment, it also is crucial to the nation's attempt to achieve energy independence. One-third of our known petroleum reserves are in Alaska, along with an even greater proportion of our potential reserves. Actions such as preventing even the exploration of Arctic Wildlife Range, a ban sought by one amendment, is an ostrich-like approach that ill-serves our nation in its time of energy crisis. They went on to write: Instability of certain nations abroad repeatedly emphasizes our need for stronger domestic supply of strategic and critical minerals. Each of the five proposed amendments would either restrict mineral areas from development or block access to those areas. Four of the seven world-class mineral finds in Alaska would be effectively barred from development by this amendments. That is simply too high a price for this nation to pay. Further from the letter: We urge you to focus on the central fact that the Alaska lands bill is not just an environmental issue. It is an energy issue. It is a national defense issue. It is an economic issue. It is not an easy vote for one constituency that affects only a remote, far-away area. It is a compelling national issue which demands the balanced solution crafted to by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Seven years earlier my colleague, Senator Gravel, and I presented an amendment to authorize the immediate construction of the Alaska pipeline. That amendment first ended up in a vote of 49-48. We had won that amendment. On a reconsideration, the vote was 49-49, and the then Vice President cast a ``yea'' vote, and the amendment was finally agreed to on the second vote. I yield myself 2 more minutes. My point in raising this before the Senate this morning is that on the Alaska pipeline there was no threat of a filibuster. Despite the fact that the then majority leader, Senator Mansfield, and the chairman of the committee, Senator Jackson, opposed our amendment for the immediate construction of the pipeline, there was no filibuster. We should not have a filibuster on the amendment that is going to be offered by my colleague Senator Murkowski and myself on this bill to proceed now to the exploration and development of the 1.5 million acres on the Arctic plain. It is still a national defense issue. I hope to raise that again and again. In times of national security crisis, there should not be a filibuster against a proposal to make available to this Nation additional oil and gas resources. I ask unanimous consent that the letter I cited of July 3, 1980 and the Congressional Record showing the affairs of the Senate on July 17, 1973 on those two votes, 295 and 296, be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I heard my good friend from Nevada make a statement earlier today concerning our delay in getting around to producing an ANWR amendment. Let me assure the Senator, we do have an ANWR amendment, and we will present it as soon as it is finalized, as it is taking some time. I have come to the Senate Chamber right now, though, to make some remarks about Iraq. I am certain that everyone in the Senate knows that Iraq has announced today it will suspend its oil exports for the next 30 days. Libya and Iran have immediately expressed support for that action and warned they will follow suit if other Arab oil-producing countries also curtailed their shipments of oil. In other words, we are on the verge of another embargo. Without any question about it, we have now seen that Iraq is using oil as a weapon to deal with our policies with regard to the Middle East. During the year 2001, the United States imported nearly 287 million barrels of oil from Iraq. I have in the Chamber a chart that shows where those 287.3 million barrels of oil went throughout our Nation. The average price of crude oil in 2001 was $22.93 per barrel. That means, with simple arithmetic, the United States paid Iraq $6.58 billion for its oil last year. The Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq confirmed last week that Saddam Hussein has paid $25,000 to the families of each of the Palestinian suicide bombers. Let's think of that again. Iraq alone has paid to the families of the suicide bombers in Palestine $25,000 per incident. In other words, we are paying that. We are giving Iraq the cash to reward those who are committing suicide while bombing innocent people in Israel. Furthermore, I want the Senate to know that today Venezuela announced a multiday strike at the Government-owned oil-producing facilities. Venezuela is one of the top three suppliers of oil to the United States. This morning, the President expressed his concern that increased gasoline prices would slow down our economic recovery. There is no question about that. Recently, the U.S. News & World Report has changed its editorial policy concerning ANWR. I want to call the attention of the Senate to an article entitled, ``A Waste of Energy?'' on page 25 of the U.S. News & World Report of April 1. It is a very interesting article when one considers the past editorial policy of that great national magazine. Make no mistake about it, we are very close to a vote that would be quite similar to the one that took place when Alaska finally obtained permission to go ahead with the oil pipeline. At that time, however-- and I say this respectfully--even though the then-majority leader, Mike Mansfield, opposed our amendment, even though the committee chairman, Senator Jackson, opposed our amendment, no filibuster was threatened, no filibuster took place in consideration of the oil pipeline amendment. Why? Because we all knew then, as we all should know now, that oil is a matter of national security. As we proceed this week, we will bring out proof of the statesmen who have led this country since the 1940s. Each and every one has said oil is a matter of national security. Yet we are facing the prospect that the ANWR amendment, when we offer it, is going to be facing a filibuster--again, with due respect --led by the majority leader and the majority side of the Senate. There should never be--there should never be--a filibuster against a matter of national security. I really believe that before we are through, before this week is out, the American citizens are going to be demanding there be an up-or-down vote on the ANWR amendment and no filibuster. And if, God forbid, by Thursday or Friday of this week we have a full-blown embargo, and we have the gas lines we all remember from the 1970s, I do hope we will understand this bill has to be considered, the ANWR amendment adopted, and the bill sent to the President as soon as possible. If we had been permitted to proceed with ANWR as we sought to proceed when President George Bush, the 41st President of the United States, requested Congress to allow us to proceed, we would have ANWR oil on line now. During the height of the Persian Gulf war, 2.1 million barrels of oil a day were sent down the Alaska oil pipeline. When I was there last week, I was told it was 925,000 barrels a day. Where are we getting the balance of the oil? We are currently getting it from Iraq. And now it is going to be shut down. I have asked the oil industry to tell us whether it is possible that they might proceed to produce in an uneconomic manner to refill that barrel, if this shortage continues. There is oil in northern Alaska now that could fill that barrel, but it would be uneconomic to produce it at the rates that would be required because the reserves are not that great anymore without our opportunity to drill in the area known as ANWR, which is part of the 1.5-million acre tract that was set aside in 1980 by an amendment sponsored by Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas for oil and gas exploration. I will be going into that at length this week, too. They promised me and committed to me that one of the things they would go along with, if we would finally approve the so-called ANILCA, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, was that 1.5 million acres in the Arctic would be left available for oil and gas exploration. I will produce the letters that were exchanged by those two Senators with all of the Senate, and the comments they made at the time. I will even show you a photograph of Senator Jackson, Senator Tsongas, and I standing there at the passage of the bill in which the promise was made that oil and gas exploration could be continued in that 1.5 million acres we all knew was part of the Arctic that has enormous promise for production of oil and gas. The main reason for speaking now is to say to the Senate, the time is right. There is no longer any time for partisan debate on this issue. This is a matter of national security. Before the week is out, we are again going to see gas lines in this country. I cannot emphasize too greatly my feeling about the delay that has taken place now since 1980. In 1980, Senators Jackson and Tsongas committed to help us get that oil exploration going to determine if oil and gas could be produced in substantial quantities from that Arctic coast area. That promise has not been kept because of the opposition that has come from the radical portion of the environmental lobbying group in this city. It is time to put radical environmentalists behind us and realize this country is united in trying to fight this war against global terrorism. I am also going to bring in a nice big poster. Do you know who is on that poster? General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He is saying to the oil and gas workers in World War II: Stay on the job because we need oil. Without oil, our military cannot function. That same thing is true now. The military is consuming vast quantities of oil, and we have to have oil to fight this war. I hope the Senate is willing to listen to me for a long time this week because as this situation gets worse, I will remind the Senate again and again and again. The ANWR issue should have been closed out in 1981. Now, 21 years later, at the time the crisis we all feared has come, we still are facing a filibuster against approval of what the Senate and the President of the United States agreed to when that bill was passed in 1980. I thank my friends for allowing me to speak at this time.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be excused from presence in the Senate starting at 5:30 tomorrow evening until the Senate reconvenes after the Easter recess.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think I am the last Senator on this side of the aisle who served on the conference committee that produced the bill that was declared unconstitutional in Buckley v. Valeo. In the 8 years I served as assistant Republican leader on the floor, many times I was involved in debates concerning actions to try to get back to the subject of campaign reform. On May 26, 1983, I introduced the constitutional amendment to allow Congress to regulate and limit expenditures and contributions in Federal elections. In 1986, I put in the Record a campaign finance study which showed very strong public opposition to publicly funded congressional campaigns, and I have maintained this stance against publicly funded campaigns for Congress since. In 1986, Senator Hollings introduced a constitutional amendment, and I cosponsored that with him, again trying to limit expenditures in Federal elections. In 1987, I was part of the debate on S. 2, which would have provided publicly funded Senate campaigns. And it was my argument then that we should have full disclosure of soft money and that the issue ad sponsorship and subsidized mail rates for 501(c) nonprofits should be regulated, as well as limiting the PAC influence on our elections. In June of 1987, I introduced S. 1326, which required unions, corporations, PACs, and all parties to report all attempts to influence Federal elections, including voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. It would have required notice and disclosure of independent expenditures and prohibited coordination of independent expenditures, but it would have increased contribution limits for individuals facing wealthy opponents. I am pleased to say that at that time I was ranking member of the Committee on Rules, in 1987, and that Senators McConnell and McCain cosponsored S. 1326. In this Congress, I voted to send the Senate campaign finance bill to conference committee and stated at the time it was my hope that a conference would produce a fair and balanced bill. This bill has not gone to conference. Instead, now we have a bill that tilts the balance of power away from accountable political parties towards nonprofit interest groups whose donors are often shielded from disclosure. These nonprofits often exist side by side: 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) corporations use tax-deductible contributions to support their overhead expenses, which allows them to spend more money on issue ads which are not regulated by this bill. As ranking member of the Rules Committee in 1987, I tried to eliminate all soft money. That legislation, I believe, would have provided substantial new disclosure requirements to rein in the nonprofit groups which now overwhelm the political process. In terms of this legislation, I have reached the conclusion that it, too, is unconstitutional. If the bill that was reviewed in Buckley v. Valeo was unconstitutional, this one surely is. It does not provide a level playing field. It does not deal with the pernicious problem of 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) nonprofit corporations. I will not put it in the Record now, but Senator Kasten at one time made a study of the influence of those corporations, and he has been gone for a long while. Their influence has grown. This bill just gives them more and more power over the election process. In my opinion, we should stop picking at the edges of this issue and pass a constitutional amendment to solve the problems created by the Supreme Court in the Buckley case. I shall vote against this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, Ralph Beistline is a lifelong Alaskan, born in Fairbanks. He grew up in Alaska and will bring that important prospective to the bench. He served as a superior court judge from 1992 until today and for the past 5 years he has been the presiding judge in the Fairbanks Superior Court. He is married to Peggy Beistline and has five children: Carrie, Daniel, Tamara, Rebecca, and David. He is the former president of the Alaska Bar Association, former president of the Tanana Valley Bar Association, former president of the Alaska Conference of Judges, and a former member of the board of governors of the Alaska Bar Association. He has been a lawyer representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference and was a long time pro-bono participant. Ralph is also an executive board member of the Boy Scouts of America and a member of Igloo #4 Pioneers of Alaska. Hailing from Fairbanks, Ralph will also bring further geographical balance to the court. I thank Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch for moving his nomination to the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am sad to disagree with my friend from Oklahoma. I point out to the Senate that this oil and gas is produced on State lands, with State leases. And our State law prohibits the rights-of-way for this gas to be moved on the northern route. It is within our province to guide the course of this asset of our State so that we might enjoy part of it. If this gas goes east from Alaska, Alaskans will never enjoy one single benefit from it except a portion of the wellhead price coming to us as royalties. We will not have any right to use it in our second largest city, in Fairbanks, along the Alaska highway going out of Alaska into Canada. This is a very dynamic area from the point of view of tourism. In addition to that, we have two major bases there, Wainwright and Eielson, and the national missile defense system is right alongside that road. This gas must come south. My State has recognized that and has now passed legislation, signed by the Governor, that specifies that no route will be allowed going east on these State lands. This gas must exit State lands before it can go either east or south. We have spoken as a State. We understand there may be some problem for us downstream. The Senator from Oklahoma would know, it may well be that the wellhead price of this gas will be lower and our share of that wellhead gas will be lower. But we will have access to the gas. We will have a chance to build the industry that might well utilize this gas in our State. This is the same problem that came up in the oil pipeline. When the pipeline route came through, there was an argument whether we should be able to take oil out of that pipeline around Fairbanks. As a matter of fact, we have won that argument. We do take out oil. We run it through two different refineries, and it is one of the greatest sources of aviation fuel for our country. It is available in the Nation's largest cargo landing port at the international airport at Anchorage. I disagree with my friend from Oklahoma. I think we have every right to say we should enjoy a portion of this resource that comes from under our own State lands and to utilize it in a way that will mean a future job base and future low energy costs for the one area of our country that pays the highest energy costs, and that is the area that this pipeline will come through and down to the border of Canada. That is the only route that is going to be built. I hate to tell my friend this. I told the industry that that line would go east over my dead body. I am not about ready to leave this world.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff be allowed the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the consideration of the energy debate: Dave Russell, George Lowe, Andy Givens, Mark Davis, Melany Alvord, Matt Paxton, and Justin Stiefel.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am reminded of a time when I was standing in the Republican cloakroom and someone announced that another Senator was having a 70th birthday. Senator Strom Thurmond said: Oh, to be 70 again. I say the same thing to my friend from Massachusetts today. Senator Kennedy and I have had a friendship that goes back many years, some 34 years. In January or February of 1969, Senator Kennedy decided to take a trip to my State to look into the plight of the Alaskan Native people, particularly with regard to education and health conditions. We traveled there to small villages from the west coast into the north country, and we had a good trip. We formed a bond then that, despite our differences in the last 34 years--and we have had differences--we have never had any disagreements. And I will tell the Senate why. At one of these small villages we were walking around, it was really quite cold. The snow was hard packed on the ground in this small village. Suddenly, out of a door of a little cabin, a young boy, little boy, darted. He just had a top on, as a matter of fact. He somehow or other had lost his diapers or whatever he had on the bottom. Senator Kennedy and I saw that. Ted, with one hand, reached down and scooped him up and with the other hand unzipped his parka and stuffed that kid in the parka, and the three of us walked around that village until the two of us found out where he lived. Ted may not remember, but when we went into that little cabin and presented the mother with the boy, there on the wall was a picture of his brother Jack. It was a very interesting day. We went on to other places. I am here today to wish my friend happy birthday, but also to tell him I have cherished that bond, that friendship. Any man who understands children that way is a friend of mine. We have worked for children, for preschoolers, for education, for the health and welfare reform of the Native people. They have met him, and they still have great fondness and love for the Senator from Massachusetts. Happy birthday, Ted. Best wishes to you and Vicki. I look forward to you one of these days saying: Oh, to be 70 again.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join the distinguished chairman of the defense subcommittee, Senator Inouye, in presenting the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense conference report to the Senate. This bill enjoys my total support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this conference report, and the funds provided herein that are vital to our national security. In addition to the base funding for the current fiscal year, this bill also includes the allocation of $20 billion in emergency supplemental funding provided by Congress immediately after the September 11 attack. These funds fulfill the commitment made by Congress to respond to the needs of the victims of the September 11 attack. I commend the Governor of New York, the Mayor of New York City, and the two Senators from New York, for their stalwart work to ensure these funds meet the needs of their constituents. The enhanced funding provided in Division B of this bill for homeland defense will also have a significant effect on the security of this nation. It is appropriate that the homeland defense funding be included in this bill--in the war against terrorism, there are no boundaries. The money in this bill to secure our borders, our airports, our ports, to protect against bioterrorism and to assist first responders will send a strong signal to our citizens, and our potential adversaries, of our determination to win this war on terrorism on every front. Turning more specifically to the underlying defense bill in Division A, there are two matters in particular I wish to address today: missile defense and the tanker leasing initiative. The Senate version of the bill provided the full $8.3 billion requested by Secretary Rumsfeld for missile defense programs. The House bill provided approximately $7.8 billion. During our conference, we were informed of two major program changes in missile defense. The Undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, on behalf of Secretary Rumsfeld, reported that the department would terminate the Navy area defense system, and the SBIRS-low satellite program. Funding for these two programs, totaling more than $700 million, was realigned to other defense priorities within and outside missile defense. For example, of the Navy area program funds, $100 million was reserved for termination liabilities for the program and $75 million was transferred to the airborne laser program. From the SBIRS-low termination, $250 million is reserved for satellite sensor technology development--which could all be used for further work under the existing SBIRS-low contracts, if the department so chooses. Addressing the significance of protecting our deployed forces, the conference agreement provides an additional $60 million over the budget request to accelerate production of the Patriot PAC-3 missile. In his statement, the chairman of the subcommittee articulated his support for the air refueling tanker initiative, and I appreciate his kind words on my role in that effort. Contrary to some reports, this provision was not a last minute industry bailout, hidden from public view. In fact, this responds to military need, and unforeseen economic circumstances--and opportunities. The effort to lease these aircraft reflects an extensive review of the Air Force's needs, and the crisis it faces in the air refueling fleet. This lease provision, provides permissive authority for the Secretary of the Air Force to replace the 134 oldest KC-135E aircraft with new tankers. These aircraft average 42 years of age, and have not received the comprehensive ``R'' model refurbishment. All of these aircraft are operated by the Air National Guard, at bases throughout the Nation. The lease will provide the new tankers to the Air Force, and permit recently refurbished ``R'' models to cascade to the Guard. This permits the National Guard to have a common fleet of aircraft, providing significant training and maintenance cost savings. They daily do the refueling operations for our Air Force planes nationally and throughout the world. The KC-135E aircraft require extensive depot maintenance. Once every 5 years, we lose that aircraft for an average of 428 days, and many more than 600 days. That means a squadron loses that aircraft for at least 15 months, up to 2 years. At any one time, one third of the fleet is unavailable for service-- redlined--putting that much more pressure on the rest of the force. During peacetime, one might argue we can survive with an inadequate air refueling fleet. Now, in wartime, the price for that failure becomes clear. Every sortie flown into Afghanistan requires at least two, and sometimes as many as four, aerial refuelings. This is the highest rate of sustained operations we have maintained since the gulf war. In the 10 years since that conflict, we have not purchased one new tanker--we've watched the fleet age and deteriorate. I know the feeling of watching a fuel gauge determine the fate of an aircraft and crew. It is not a comfortable or pleasant one. I remember one time I ran out of fuel on landing and had to have the aircraft towed off the field. This may sound like an arcane discussion, compared to the allure of new F-22's, or B-2 bombers, but let me give you an old transport pilot's perspective. Our forces today have virtually no margin for error--an F-15 doesn't glide very long, and an F-18 that cannot make the carrier deck has little hope for survival. We can buy the exciting, and needed, new weapons platforms but without the gas they'll never get home after the fight. Some have suggested the leasing approach is not a good deal for the Government. That is simply wrong. This provision includes the most stringent requirements ever set for an aircraft leasing program. The law states that the cost to the Air Force for the lease cannot exceed 90 percent of the fair market value of the aircraft. That means the Secretary cannot sign a contract if the lease cost would exceed that threshold. The Secretary must report to the Congress all the details of any proposed contract in advance of signing any agreement. We will get to look at this contract before the deal is set. Mr. President, nothing in the leasing authority provided in this bill is directive--the discretion rests solely with the Secretary of the Air Force. I have had extensive discussions about this initiative with the Secretary, with the former Commander of the Transportation Command, Gen. Robertson, and other DOD officials. All have endorsed this approach. The language in this bill is the product of extensive discussions with CBO and OMB. No objection has been raised. Secretary Rumsfeld's letter on the bill did not object to this initiative, nor did the Department's detailed appeals to the Appropriations Conference. Since taking office, Secretary Rumsfeld has sought to chart a course to manage the Pentagon consistent with the best practices in the private sector. This initiative seeks to do just that--give the Secretary all the tools we can to meet the Department's modernization needs, within the tight budget constraints he will face. The airlines lease aircraft, private businesses lease aircraft, our ally Great Britain currently leases U.S. built C-17 aircraft. In addition, Great Britain has issued a solicitation to lease air refueling tankers, and the Boeing 767 is the lead candidate. We did not decide to choose the 767. The Air Force told us this is the right aircraft for the mission. Gen. Jumper, the Air Force Chief, envisions moving the Air Force to a common wide body platform for a range of missions--he determined the 767 is the best platform. Interestingly, two of our closest allies--Italy and Japan--have already signed contracts to purchase 767 tankers on a commercial basis. Some have suggested that this provision should have opened the door to competition with Airbus. The problem is that Airbus does not have a tanker on the world market. More telling, two of the Airbus founding partners--Britain and Italy--have both opted for the American-built tanker for their military. Personally, I have complete confidence we can extend this authority to the Secretary of the Air Force, and he will only use it if he believes it is absolutely in the best interest of the Air Force. I want to close by thanking again our Chairman, Senator Inouye, for his leadership in moving this bill through committee, the floor and conference in only 15 days--an incredible achievement. Also, our partners in the House, Chairman Lewis and Mr. Murtha, and the full committee chairman, Congressman Bill Young and ranking member, Dave Obey, deserve tremendous credit for managing their bill in the House, and working out this package in conference. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.

Mr. STEVENS. It is. There are a number of other nations and at least one private company who have expressed an interest in procuring general purpose, commercially configured tanker aircraft.