Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Our records show it is amendment No. 334.

Mr. STEVENS. I am corrected; it is amendment No. 333.

Mr. STEVENS. I have made the motion we vitiate the rollcall and accept the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, respectfully, the Senator from Massachusetts is wrong. Those who die in training or other activities related to combat are covered by our amendment. We sought to recognize fallen heroes from the time they enter training for combat to go overseas. They are covered by our amendment. What this amendment does is it does not give us the opportunity to recognize those who put their lives on the line. We oppose this amendment because of that fact. We do believe there ought to be a distinction. The Senator's amendment will mean, if someone right here in this district while in uniform drinks too much and dies while driving home, they are going to get this gratuity, the same gratuity the fallen hero should get. It is wrong to cover anyone in uniform with this type of allowance. We have increased the insurance for everyone in uniform. They can buy up to $400,000. But raising this from $12,240 to $100,000--it should go to those related to combat and in combat.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator from Maryland yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. It is an amendment to restore the money for the initial design of the building for the National Intelligence Director. When this bill was before our committee, we reduced that amount at the time, but when the budget was presented, there was not a nominee for that office. Yesterday, I presented to the Intelligence Committee Ambassador Negroponte to be the new NID and discussed this issue with him. It has become somewhat controversial. This amendment I have would restore the money our committee reduced in the line that deals with the NID. It has been cleared. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside temporarily so we may consider this amendment. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. STEVENS. No.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland. I have a request to set aside the Senator's amendment temporarily while we consider this amendment which has been cleared on both sides. It restores the original budget request for NID. I offer the amendment on behalf of myself and the Senator from Hawaii, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be brought before the Senate, that it be adopted, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that we go back to the amendment of the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration represents our Nation's greatest hopes and aspirations. President Bush nominated Dr. Michael D. Griffin to be the next NASA Administrator on March 14, 2005. Dr. Griffin takes over an agency that is embarking on the President's Vision for Space Exploration, which will take America back to the moon and eventually to Mars. The Vision is NASA's biggest mission since the Apollo program began more than 40 years ago. Dr. Griffin will guide NASA on the first steps of this important journey that will define America's presence in space for the next several decades. At the same time, we still mourn the loss of the Columbia's crew as NASA readies the Space Shuttle for its return to flight next month. Dr. Griffin's first task will be to ensure that the shuttle program gets back on its feet safely and effectively. NASA needs its next Administrator immediately, and I thank the Senate for agreeing to the request from Senator Inouye and myself to discharge and approve this nomination. Dr. Griffin's extensive background in space and science will serve him and NASA well. He is currently head of the Space Department at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Previously, Dr. Griffin was President and Chief Operating Officer of In-Q-Tel, an independent, nonprofit venture group chartered to identify and invest in cutting-edge commercial technologies for intelligence community applications. He has also served as CEO of the Magellan Systems Division of Orbital Sciences Corporation, as General Manager of Orbital's Space Systems Group, and as the company's Executive Vice President/Chief Technical Officer. Prior to joining Orbital, he was Senior Vice President for Program Development at Space Industries International, and General Manager of the Space Industries Division in Houston. Dr. Griffin has served in a number of Governmental positions. With NASA, he served as both the Chief Engineer and the Associate Administrator for Exploration, and within the Department of Defense-- DOD--he served as the Deputy for Technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization--SDIO. Before joining SDIO, Dr. Griffin played a leading role in numerous space missions while employed at the Johns Hopkins APL, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Computer Sciences Corporation. He holds seven degrees in the fields of physics, electrical engineering, aerospace engineering, civil engineering, and business administration, and has been an Adjunct Professor at the George Washington University, the Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland. He is the lead author on more than two dozen technical papers and the textbook Space Vehicle Design. He is a recipient of the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal and the DOD Distinguished Public Service Medal. He is also a Registered Professional Engineer in Maryland and California, and a Certified Flight Instructor with instrument and multi-engine ratings. Dr. Griffin succeeds a close friend and former leader of my staff, Sean O'Keefe. Sean did an admirable job getting the agency's finances under control and, more importantly, holding NASA together after the Columbia tragedy. We were lucky NASA had such a leader during that trying time. At the Commerce Committee's hearing on Dr. Griffin's nomination I spoke of my recent travels with Sean, during which I was approached repeatedly by people who raved about Dr. Griffin. They all said he was the man for the job if he could be convinced to accept it. I am pleased the President appointed Dr. Griffin and I look forward to working closely with him and his team of talented professionals.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor to support the defense portion of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill before us. I thank Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd for their support of the funding requested by the Pentagon to continue the efforts of our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism. The bill has been highlighted by the chairman and Senator Byrd. It provides $73.3 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the Department of Defense programs. Most of those funds are to continue the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also have authorized use of that to pay back those accounts from which funds were borrowed during the first half of the current fiscal year on an emergency basis for continued operations in those areas. Mr. President, $17.5 billion of this money will go toward military appropriations accounts. Those moneys are used to fund pay allowances and subsistence and other personnel costs for active Guard and Reserve troops activated for duty throughout the world. This bill also includes funding for special pay, such as imminent danger pay, family separation allowances, and hardship duty pay. We also provide additional funds for the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Program and for an enhanced death gratuity. Specifically, this bill increases service members' insurance coverage from $250,000 to $400,000 and raises the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000. This has been requested, and Congress has authorized to fund these enhanced benefits to cover those military personnel who have been or may be killed in combat operations. We recommend an increase in the death gratuity benefit to cover those service members killed in training or in other combat-related activities. Almost half of the defense portion of this bill goes toward the operation and maintenance accounts of the Department of Defense-- $37.4 billion. Now, this reflects the cost of ground operations, flying hours, logistics support, fuel, travel, transportation, and support of the global war on terrorism. Additionally, it will finance the repair and refurbishment of equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that our forces remain ready to meet global operational commitments. The bill provides $15.9 billion for procurement activity across the military. It funds force protection equipment, replacement and repair of equipment lost in operations, and the equipping of units to support upcoming rotations. Senior Department of Defense officials informed our committee that they need to receive this supplemental funding by early May in order not to impact readiness levels. We all know it will take some time to take this bill through conference, so I urge the Senate to complete action on the supplemental bill as soon as possible so that we can proceed to confer with our friends in the House and give this bill to the President for signature so it can be reviewed by the processes downtown, which takes at least 10 days, and get this money to the Department in time to meet these contingencies so they don't have to borrow additional moneys from other accounts. It complicates the operation when that continues. I hope Senators will come forward with their amendments, if they have any, on this portion of the supplemental bill. Again, I commend our distinguished chairman and senior ranking member, Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, for their cooperation with us in bringing this portion of this bill before the Senate. We are a little bit lower than the House, and the bill is lower than the President's request. I think as matters continue we are going to have to review the numbers and make sure we meet the pressing, urgent needs of those who wear the uniform of the United States. Again, I urge Senators to come forward and make suggestions for amendments, if they have them. I look forward to continued support of this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katy Hagan, a detailee with the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, be granted privileges of the floor during consideration of this bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have introduced today the Graduation Really Achieves Dreams, GRAD, Act, which will help improve our nation's graduation rate by authorizing a program that has a proven track record--Project GRAD USA. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Frist, Clinton, Alexander, DeWine, Hutchison and Specter. Currently in our Nation, we graduate only 70 percent of our students from high school. In high poverty urban districts, we often graduate fewer than half that many--one in three. In rural areas, where one- third of American students are educated--only 58.8 percent of students attend colleges and universities, compared with 68.2 percent in urban and suburban areas. The problem is especially acute in Alaska, where Alaska Natives are almost twice as likely as other students to drop out of high school. We must provide better support and resources for our most vulnerable students. Project GRAD USA is already doing that job in 12 sites nationwide, including one in my own State of Alaska. Project GRAD USA is a national program to increase the number of low- income and at-risk students who attend college and earn degrees. Unlike other national programs, Project GRAD USA is a comprehensive non-profit K-12 education reform program. It serves at-risk students, beginning in kindergarten, and staying with them through college, by offering research-based programs in reading, math, classroom management, social services, and college preparation. Students who qualify then receive a four-year college scholarship. Scholarships are funded by private- industry donations and foundation grants, as well as previously- appropriated Federal dollars. In Alaska, Project GRAD established a program in the Kenai Peninsula and serves six K-12 schools and one K-10 school, reaching 600 students. Three schools serve small Alaska Native communities; three serve Russian Old Believer communities; and the seventh school serves a mixed community of Alaska Natives, Russians and other Caucasians. More than 47 percent of the students Project GRAD Kenai serves are at poverty level, and 49.2 percent of Kenai students report that a language other than English is spoken at home. Project GRAD is committed to maintaining cultural relevance in each of the schools it serves and creating individualized components developed with community leaders, teachers and families. This legislation would provide funds so Project GRAD can continue to grow in the States where it now operates and expand its proven model elsewhere. It also requires the local sites to match federal funds it receives with local dollars and in-kind support. In this way, federal funds are leveraged to increase support for needed educational reform and enhancement. When I visit the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska, I see first hand the impact Project GRAD has made on the students in this district as well as the significant economic impact to the overall Peninsula. In the first five years of the program, over $6 million will be invested in program development and implementation and nearly $250,000 will be awarded in scholarships. Project GRAD USA has proven its effectiveness nationwide and now serves over 133,000 students. High school graduation rates for long- term participants have increased by 85 percent, and those who have gone on to college have earned college degrees at a rate of 89 percent above the national average. These results have not gone unnoticed as President Bush and Majority Leader Frist have both strongly supported the program. Further, Fortune magazine chose GRAD as its ``charity of choice'' for 2004. Proven education, retention and graduation initiatives aimed at our students most at-risk deserve every policy maker's attention as we aim to do the most good with limited resources. I am proud to support this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to join me to ensure Project GRAD's continued success for our children.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. The amendment to strip development in ANWR from the budget yesterday ignores the outlook for the global consumption of oil. I am pleased that the Senate took a proactive approach to our current energy crisis, and voted to keep ANWR in the budget. After listening at length to the statements of those opposed to responsible development on Alaska's North Slope, I was struck by the lack of concern over the national security implications of our dependence on foreign oil. The global outlook for oil consumption is sobering, and it validates our decision yesterday to increase our domestic production by opening ANWR. One of the most serious areas of concern is the projected increase in China's oil consumption, which is set to grow at staggering rates. China's economy is doubling every 8 to 10 years. This level of growth is expected to continue for at least 25 years. To do this, China will need access to an increasing supply of oil. Milton Copulos, the President of the National Defense Council Foundation, told our House colleagues yesterday that fueling this economic growth will require ``so much oil . . . that the ability of current suppliers to produce it may be stretched to the breaking point.'' Jeffery Logan, Senior Energy Analyst and China Program Manager for the International Energy Agency, testified that, the average Chinese citizen consumed only one fourteenth of the oil consumed by the average American in 2004, but Chinese consumption is poised to increase rapidly. Mr. Logan noted that in late 2003 China surpassed Japan to become the world's second largest petroleum consumer. He said: In 2004, Chinese demand expanded nearly 16 percent to 6.83 million barrels per day . . . [but] Domestic crude output in China has grown only very slowly over the past five years . . . Imports now account for 40 percent of Chinese oil demand. To put this in perspective, Chinese oil consumption was responsible for 40 percent of the growth in global oil demand over the past four years. This trend will continue and China's consumption is projected to rise from 5.56 million barrels per day in 2003 to 12.8 million barrels in 2025. Mr. Logan told the subcommittee that eventually China's ``import dependency'' will reach 75 percent stressing an already tenuous world oil supply. Milton Copulos explained the consequences of this increase in Chinese consumption. He said: Under the best circumstances, the competition for oil generated by the explosive economic growth in Asia will serve to put a tremendous upward pressure on prices, driving them well above the current $50 plus per barrel average. OPEC officials have said oil prices could rise to as much as $80 a barrel and they may well be correct. Under the worst circumstances, . . . the competition for oil could lead to armed conflict--particularly with China. I remember well the days of the 1970's oil embargo, and I agree with Mr. Copulos that, ``America is heading head-long into a disaster. Today our situation is far worse in 1973.'' I also agree with his assessment that: The simple truth is that America's energy endowment is more than sufficient to provide for all of our needs, both today and in the future. The only real shortfall that we have is a shortfall of the political will to find innovative ways to fully utilize the resources we are blessed with. Mr. Copulos discussed several areas where having the political will to take action could help turn our situation around. As an Alaskan, I am proud that our state can play a key role in the solutions he proposed. The reality that some people do not want to face is the world is changing. China's economy is growing at a staggering pace, and without new domestic production, our country will face unimaginable competition for oil. ANWR is part of the solution to this looming crisis, and I am pleased Congress has finally had the political will to face this challenge and take proactive steps to prevent it.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have introduced today the Graduation Really Achieves Dreams, GRAD, Act, which will help improve our nation's graduation rate by authorizing a program that has a proven track record--Project GRAD USA. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Frist, Clinton, Alexander, DeWine, Hutchison and Specter. Currently in our Nation, we graduate only 70 percent of our students from high school. In high poverty urban districts, we often graduate fewer than half that many--one in three. In rural areas, where one- third of American students are educated--only 58.8 percent of students attend colleges and universities, compared with 68.2 percent in urban and suburban areas. The problem is especially acute in Alaska, where Alaska Natives are almost twice as likely as other students to drop out of high school. We must provide better support and resources for our most vulnerable students. Project GRAD USA is already doing that job in 12 sites nationwide, including one in my own State of Alaska. Project GRAD USA is a national program to increase the number of low- income and at-risk students who attend college and earn degrees. Unlike other national programs, Project GRAD USA is a comprehensive non-profit K-12 education reform program. It serves at-risk students, beginning in kindergarten, and staying with them through college, by offering research-based programs in reading, math, classroom management, social services, and college preparation. Students who qualify then receive a four-year college scholarship. Scholarships are funded by private- industry donations and foundation grants, as well as previously- appropriated Federal dollars. In Alaska, Project GRAD established a program in the Kenai Peninsula and serves six K-12 schools and one K-10 school, reaching 600 students. Three schools serve small Alaska Native communities; three serve Russian Old Believer communities; and the seventh school serves a mixed community of Alaska Natives, Russians and other Caucasians. More than 47 percent of the students Project GRAD Kenai serves are at poverty level, and 49.2 percent of Kenai students report that a language other than English is spoken at home. Project GRAD is committed to maintaining cultural relevance in each of the schools it serves and creating individualized components developed with community leaders, teachers and families. This legislation would provide funds so Project GRAD can continue to grow in the States where it now operates and expand its proven model elsewhere. It also requires the local sites to match federal funds it receives with local dollars and in-kind support. In this way, federal funds are leveraged to increase support for needed educational reform and enhancement. When I visit the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska, I see first hand the impact Project GRAD has made on the students in this district as well as the significant economic impact to the overall Peninsula. In the first five years of the program, over $6 million will be invested in program development and implementation and nearly $250,000 will be awarded in scholarships. Project GRAD USA has proven its effectiveness nationwide and now serves over 133,000 students. High school graduation rates for long- term participants have increased by 85 percent, and those who have gone on to college have earned college degrees at a rate of 89 percent above the national average. These results have not gone unnoticed as President Bush and Majority Leader Frist have both strongly supported the program. Further, Fortune magazine chose GRAD as its ``charity of choice'' for 2004. Proven education, retention and graduation initiatives aimed at our students most at-risk deserve every policy maker's attention as we aim to do the most good with limited resources. I am proud to support this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to join me to ensure Project GRAD's continued success for our children.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? The Senator from Washington has already taken 10 minutes off the resolution on this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. But it still unbalances this time. I ask unanimous consent I have 10 minutes, equal to the Senator from Washington, off the resolution.

Mr. STEVENS. I have a pending request, also.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't know what all the fight is about. If the comments are true, that they think no one will bid, why do they oppose this? I am interested in the Senator from Wisconsin and his great defense of wildlife refuges. This area we are talking about is not within a wildlife refuge. It is not wilderness. But in his State, he has three pipelines running through wildlife refuges. Wisconsin has stood aside for all that they want. And as a matter of fact, the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, said that only Alaskans benefit from oil development. This happens to be oil development on Federal land. It is not true that only Alaskans benefit from development of our State. We happen to have a unique State in that we share the income we get from royalties on oil and natural gas that came from Prudhoe Bay where the State owns the land. Incidentally, I want to tell my friend, the former Presidential candidate, Mr. Kerry, I take umbrage at his comment that I am guilty of unethical conduct because I am supporting the budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee. That smacks very much of something that is a subject of personal privilege, and I shall consider that later. Maybe Senator Kerry would like to come explain why he has singled me out for unethical conduct. But beyond that, I must express my amazement that my colleague from Washington has offered this amendment. In 1980, the former Senator from Washington and my good friend, Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson wrote a letter discussing the importance of ANWR and this 1.5 million acres. He said ANWR was: . . . 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 the Arctic Wildlife Range . . . is an ostrich- like approach that ill serves our nation in this time of energy crisis. That is the former Senator from Washington. Not only does ANWR serve our important national security interests, it serves the economic interests of the State of Washington. As a matter of fact, Washington gets a great deal more out of Alaska's oil development than anyone. The economic health of the Puget Sound is tied directly to Alaska, as is illustrated by a report commissioned by the Tacoma-Pierce County and Greater Seattle Chambers of Commerce. Of particular importance is the oil production from the North Slope. Washington's refining industry purchases almost its entire crude stock from Alaska. The report states that: Direct impact from the refining of Alaska crude oil within the Puget Sound region includes 1,990 jobs and $144.5 million in labor earnings. In 2003, oil refineries in the Puget Sound imported $2.8 billion worth of crude oil from Alaska. Alaska oil provided 90 percent of the region's oil refinery needs. Oil development is a major contributor to the health of Washington's economy. As oil wealth in the State of Alaska increases, so does demand for Puget Sound goods and services. That is why the chambers of commerce of Washington State support ANWR. They understand that with Prudhoe Bay declining--today it only produces about 950 thousand barrels a day; it used to produce 2.1 million barrels a day--additional oil resources must be developed to ensure the continued economic viability of the Puget Sound region. The Puget Sound region has the luxury of purchasing our oil. Otherwise it would be purchasing oil from distant foreign shores. The development of Prudhoe Bay has contributed more than $1.6 billion to the Washington economy. And ANWR alone is estimated to create over 12,000 new jobs in Washington State alone, in addition to the revenues it will generate. None of these benefits will take place if the Senator's amendment is allowed to pass. Not only are decreasing oil output and declining revenues affecting the health of Washington, its major businesses are feeling the heat, particularly the aviation industry. The rise in fuel prices is greatly impacting Washington's aviation industry. Our airline industry has lost over $25 billion in the last 3 years. Sustained high jet fuel costs of $1.50 per gallon, which is almost three times that of 1999, continues to hamper the health of this critical industry. Every dollar per barrel the cost of oil rises costs the airline industry an additional $2 million per month. High energy prices also prevent job creation in the transportation sector. The Air Transport Association estimates that for every dollar increase in the price of fuel, they could fund almost 5,300 airline jobs. That should be worrisome to a person who represents the area of the aerospace industry of this country and wants to deny us access to this oil. Let me speak about access to this oil. Washington consumes 17.6 million gallons of petroleum per day, including 7.3 million gallons of gasoline and $2.5 million for jet fuel. It produces no oil at all. Were it not for oil from my State, the Puget Sound region would be destitute. Now, some people argue we should not develop ANWR because it would devastate the traditional lifestyle of Alaska's Natives. I think they do a disservice to the Alaskan Native people. They talk about the Gwich'ins. Let me be sure that everybody understands that the Gwich'ins, which the Democrats parade around this town, are from the South Slope. They are not in the North Slope. They have no traditional role in the North Slope. The only thing they share with the North Slope is the fact that the porcupine caribou herd, which comes from Canada up to the North Slope, goes through their area on up to the North Slope, and that is where they calve. But not every year. Some years they don't go. Why? Because their relatives in Canada kill too many. The Gwich'ins hunt caribou in Canada and they can serve it commercially. For them, it is a sports animal versus a subsistence animal on our side. They have benefitted from oil production. They have provided revenues for schools, clean water, sanitation, electrical power, health clinics, roads, and Natives. I don't think most people understand that because of the situation in terms of the Alaska Land Claims Settlement Act, when one region gets money from natural resources, it must share with the other 11 regions. The 7(i) concept is the most unique concept in America. That is why all of the Natives in Alaska have an interest in ANWR. If the Natives of the North Slope get money--and they will--from this development, they must share that with the other 11 regions. I have worked closely with them to enact the strictest environmental standards on the planet, dealing with the developments on the North Slope. People don't realize that the petroleum industry has been able to coexist with wildlife in the Arctic, and it really has the support of the Natives who live in that area. Thirty-three percent of unemployed Alaskans are Natives. Twenty percent of Alaskan Natives have incomes below the poverty line. Development of ANWR holds the potential to improve their situation. That is why they are in this city now trying to tell Members that they want ANWR developed. We have been accused of trying to use strange procedures. I don't think it is strange. We had the same provision in last year and they were able to take it out. They knew they had the votes last year and they were not screaming like they are now. This year, things have changed. There has been an election.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am winding down. We have sent this item to the President to ask why we don't follow the usual procedures. President Clinton vetoed it on the request of the people on that side. We passed this in the Senate twice. The trouble is, for 24 years we have tried to carry out commitments made by Senators Tsongas and Jackson that this area would be explored. For 24 years, there have been devices used by the other side to prevent it. But they forget even Congressman Mo Udall stated that nothing stops a future Congress from allowing exploration for these uses if they are of sufficient national importance. The question is whether they are of sufficient national importance. Those who voted for this amendment will tell you they are voting against ANWR, but they won't tell you what they are for. Where are they going to get the oil? A vote for this amendment is a vote for the status quo.

Mr. STEVENS. I will use a couple more minutes off of our allotted time. My friend Ronald Reagan used to say that ``status quo is Latin for 'the mess we are in.' '' A vote for this amendment closes our domestic resources to production. It is a vote for continuing our current policy of importing more than 60 percent of our Nation's oil. It is a vote for outsourcing more than 1.3 million American jobs a year. A vote for this amendment is a vote for increasing home heating bills and transportation costs. It is a vote to diminish our national security by relying on rogue nations, nations with unstable regimes. I don't think there is a Senator in this Congress who would offer a bill that exports 1.3 million American jobs every year, will cost $200 billion annually by 2025, and leaves our national security vulnerable to the whims of unfriendly foreign regimes. That is what this does. A vote for this amendment is not just a vote against ANWR; it is a vote for closing our Nation's single greatest prospect for future oil development and backing out of the promise made to Alaskans in 1980-- and all Americans--when Senators Jackson and Tsongas created section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. A vote for this amendment is a vote against the people of Washington State, who rely almost completely on Alaska for their oil for their industrial base and energy consumption. Above all, a vote for this amendment is against Alaska Natives who overwhelmingly support development in ANWR because they know they can balance stewardship and conservation with the development. Alaska Natives would use a portion of the revenues to finance schools, water systems, and health clinics while pursuing their way of life. Again, every Alaska Native will share in the money that is received by the North Slope people. They all share because of the bill this Congress wrote, the Alaskan Native Land Claim Settlement Act. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for 2 minutes off the resolution.

Mr. STEVENS. For the information of Senator Kerry, British Petroleum is currently investing over $500 million annually in Alaska and is drilling now over 100 new wells. I hope my colleagues consider this amendment. What I really want to ask, finally, is to vote no. I have been fighting now for 24 years to get Congress to keep its word. In a fight such as this, the Senator really learns and realizes who his true friends are. I know those who vote against this amendment are doing so because it is the right thing to do for the country. But I count you among those of us from the World War II generation who understood that oil is ammunition and understand what it means to keep a promise. And I shall not forget it. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2005, at 4:30 p.m. to receive a classified briefing regarding improvised explosive devices (IEDS).