Floor Statements

I will be glad to have you occupy the Chair right now, as President pro tempore.

Will the Senator take a division vote? A standing vote? A division of the Senate, a standing vote? All those in favor stand?

Where there is no objection, yes.

How about a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Levin amendment, which would eliminate all funding for long-lead items for the ground- based interceptors Nos. 31 through 40, and funding for the silos for those missiles.

Realigning funding from this program would have significant impact, significant consequences for our national missile defense system.

In addition to breaking the production line for these interceptors, it would add an additional $270 million to the cost of the program. Further, it would delay emplacement of the additional interceptors by at least 1 year. I do not believe we can afford that delay in our national missile defense system.

Reducing interceptor quantities places second and third tier industrial-based suppliers at a substantial risk of exiting the manufacturing of components for the interceptors. They are currently manufacturing these. If there is a delay, those small businesses would have to leave that system. It will increase the probability of component quality problems because new suppliers would have to be found. We should not interrupt this system. This amendment would break this production line and affect the subcontractors all along the line. My great concern is that quality and process improvement efforts that were initiated by the Missile Defense Agency would be significantly impacted if this amendment were agreed to.

Replacing and recertifying component suppliers would further increase interceptor costs by millions of dollars and take a minimum of 1 year to accomplish. That would delay the fielding of the additional capabilities for these warfighters.

This amendment realigns funding from missile defense to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which is called CTR. That has been fully funded at the administration's request and at the administration's amount. There remains a large unobligated balance within the CTR account and a very large undisbursed balance. It is almost $1 billion. I cannot justify adding additional funding to the program at the expense of the Missile Defense Program which has essential requirements when there is already a surplus in that account. The threat is real and imminent, as General Cartwright has testified. General Cartwright is the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. The CIA and the DIA assess that North Korea is ready to flight test an ICBM that could reach the United States. That is of critical importance to those who live in Alaska. We are closer than any other State to that threat. Iran may have such capability by the middle of the next decade, according to DIA.

Despite recent test failures, the technology is mature enough to proceed with fielding even while we continue to test and improve reliability. That is the genius of this system. We have fielded it and, if necessary, we can use it. We are perfecting it as we go. The failures were the result of quality control issues and they do not undermine our confidence that the hit-to-kill technology works. It should be in place.

An independent review team has recently concluded that the ground- based midcourse system's design is sound and is capable of providing a defense against long-range ballistic missiles such as the one I described we think is being tested in North Korea.

In a hearing before our Senate Committee on Appropriations, General Cartwright described the missile defense system as a ``thin line system.'' Additional interceptors will help the warfighters better defend against ballistic missile attack. According to the warfighters, a primary system limitation is there are too few interceptors. This amendment will delay the ones that should be in place during this fiscal year.

I urge the Senate to defeat this amendment. We should not reduce funding for the Missile Defense Program at this critical juncture. We need to test the program, improve it, and continue testing. We should not stop production by realigning funding from the missile defense system, particularly putting it into account when there is almost $1 billion surplus already.

The Missile Defense Program, in my judgment, is vital to the security of this country. We should not cause further delay. I strongly urge the Senate to vote against this amendment and reject this reduction in transfer to an account that does not need the money.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today marks the 50th anniversary of the Alaska Constitutional Convention. I speak to pay tribute to those who contributed to this milestone in our State's history.

When the Constitutional Convention began on November 8, 1955, Alaska was a territory foundering under the weight of discriminatory Federal legislation.

Alaskans were denied control and management of our fisheries. We were denied our share of Federal highway funds. We were denied the ability to expand our economy because of unfair land laws. We were denied the right to vote for our President and Vice President. And we were denied full representation in Congress.

Our economy had been damaged by article 27 of the Jones Act, which Congress passed in 1920. This act specifically excluded Alaska from the United States' ship and rail system. It required all goods and services be diverted through Seattle, which drove up prices and pushed many Alaskans out of business.

As former territorial governor Ernest Gruening told the convention delegates in 1955, Alaska was ``no less a colony than were those thirteen colonies along the Atlantic seaboard in 1775.'' Governor Gruening then quoted the United States Declaration of Independence and told the delegates it was time for Alaska to ``let facts be submitted to a candid world.''

Fifty-five men and women were chosen to serve as convention delegates. The number 55 was selected to reflect the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, which produced the Constitution of the United States.

On November 8, 1955, the delegates met at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. They worked for 75 days, and their efforts produced a precedent-setting constitution, which formed the basis for Congressional approval of statehood.

Thanks to the dedication of George Lehleitner of Louisiana and C.W. Bill Snedden, publisher of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, our constitution included Alaska's version of the ``Tennessee plan,'' which had been used successfully by Tennessee, Michigan, California, Oregon, Kansas, and Iowa to gain admission to this Union. Under this plan, our territory elected a Congressional delegation without waiting for Congressional approval.

When they began their deliberations 50 years ago today, no one could have predicted how successful our convention delegates would be. They considered the needs of Alaskans who lived in the territory and the needs of those who would later live in our State. Their foresight gave us the document that has stood the test of time and been hailed as a model of state constitutions. And their efforts set in motion the series of events that led to statehood.

Before the Constitutional Convention, there were many who questioned whether Alaskans could be entrusted with statehood. They thought we were too far-removed from the lower 48, too different. Those who participated in the drafting of our constitution changed this. Our constitution affirmed our commitment to the democratic ideals upon which this Union was founded.

The 55 convention delegates were devoted public servants who became Alaska's founding mothers and fathers. Today, five of those delegates are meeting in Anchorage. They are:

George Sundborg, Sr., a newspaperman who served as chair of the convention's committee on style and drafting. George later served as Senator Ernest Gruening's top aide in Washington, DC.

Dr. Victor Fischer, who served as chair of the convention's committee on the Executive Branch. Vic was later elected to the territorial House of Representatives and served the State he helped create in the Alaska State Senate.

John ``Jack'' Coghill, who was chair of the convention's committee on administration. Jack was a member of the territorial House of Representatives and later served as mayor of Nenana, State Senator, and Alaska's Lieutenant Governor.

Seaborn Buckalew, a member of the territorial House of Representatives who later served as a State Senator, Assistant Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard, and U.S. District Attorney and Superior Court Judge for the 3rd Judicial District.

Burke Riley, who served as chair of the convention's committee on rules. Burke was a special assistant to Governor Gruening and the Secretary of Alaska from 1952 through 1953, a position similar to today's lieutenant governor. He also served in the territorial House of Representatives.

Today, these delegates are joined by:

Thomas Stewart, who served in the territorial legislature and chaired its Joint Committee on Statehood and Federal Legislation, which drafted the Convention Enabling Act. Tom served as secretary of the convention and later became an Alaska Superior Court Judge. He played a key role in establishing our State's court system.

Katherine Hurley, who was the long-time executive secretary to territorial Governor Ernest Gruening and secretary of the territorial senate. Ms. Hurley served as chief clerk of the convention.

Doris Ann Bartlett, the daughter of my predecessor, Senator Bob Bartlett. Doris served as librarian of the convention.

Also in Anchorage today are three consultants who advised the convention delegates:

Dr. George Rogers, who served as temporary secretary and economics consultant,

Dr. Vincent Ostrum of the University of Indiana, and

Dr. Earnest Bartley of the University of Florida.

On behalf of all Alaskans, Senator Lisa Murkowski and I have come to the floor today to thank these men and women whose hard work laid the foundation for the 49th State.

In his speech closing the proceedings, Bill Egan, the president of the Constitutional Convention who later served three terms as Alaska's Governor, said:

I say to each and every Alaskan: If it had been your good

fortune, as it has been mine, to have witnessed the

abilities, the diligence, the devotion to duty, of these

delegates . . . you would say of their labors, ``well done!''

Bill Egan's words endure today. Well done, thank you, and God bless each of you!

I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Murkowski.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to introduce this bill, which repeals a provision in the 1977 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972--a provision which unduly restricts our ability to get States on the west coast the petroleum supplies they need.

In the last several weeks, some of our colleagues have participated in press conferences, sent out news releases, and come to the floor to talk about the impact of high energy prices. They have expressed concern about the effect these prices are having on our economy, our consumers, our businesses, and our national security.

I share their concerns. In fact, for over 3 years, I have been urging the Senate to deal with this situation.

It took one of the worst natural disasters in the history of our Nation for many to evaluate our energy policy. While the circumstances are tragic, I am glad our colleagues are taking a closer look at this.

The plan our colleagues now support aims to achieve the right goal, but it offers the wrong solution. Their plan calls for energy independence--a goal which I support. But they tout conservation as the only way to reach this goal. This approach would put us on the wrong course and fail to solve the larger problem.

Our country is in the midst of an energy crisis, and we cannot conserve our way out. To suggest otherwise does a great disservice to all Americans. We don't need a hollow plan, we need results.

We cannot get out of this crisis by blaming Americans--who are just trying to live their lives, run their businesses, and get to and from work--for the situation we are in. This is not solely a consumption problem; much of this crisis stems from misguided policies which have locked up our lands and prevented us from building new refineries.

The only way to become energy independent is through a combination of initiatives. Conservation is one part of the broader solution.

But we also need to develop renewable and alternative sources of energy and invest in nuclear power and we must develop our domestic oil and gas resources which exist on Federal lands.

The end to this crisis lies in the balance between conservation and development. Yes, I believe that Americans need to conserve our energy resources, but this alone won't solve our energy crisis. To suggest it will is to greatly mislead the American public.

We need to get serious about our energy policy.

My good friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, has told us we must expand on the Energy bill.

I agree with Senator Domenici, and I look forward to working with him on an energy policy for this country that makes sense.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita exposed a weakness in our domestic production and refining capability, weakness some of us have been warning about for years. All Americans have been hit with higher energy prices in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Some colleagues have expressed concern that this situation was compounded by price gouging. Senator Inouye and I, along with our colleagues on the Commerce Committee, are evaluating several bills pertaining to that issue. In the coming days, we will be moving forward to address some of those concerns.

In the process of reviewing these concerns, the claims by those on the west coast were of particular interest to me. Due to current restrictions in the MMPA, it is almost impossible for companies to expand their refineries to increase supply. The provision repealed by my bill is currently impacting the largest refinery on the west coast, affecting more than 300,000 gallons of fuel per day.

I introduce this bill to enable us to get petroleum resources to west coast States quickly and urge my colleagues to support this initiative.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to introduce this bill, which repeals a provision in the 1977 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972--a provision which unduly restricts our ability to get States on the west coast the petroleum supplies they need.

In the last several weeks, some of our colleagues have participated in press conferences, sent out news releases, and come to the floor to talk about the impact of high energy prices. They have expressed concern about the effect these prices are having on our economy, our consumers, our businesses, and our national security.

I share their concerns. In fact, for over 3 years, I have been urging the Senate to deal with this situation.

It took one of the worst natural disasters in the history of our Nation for many to evaluate our energy policy. While the circumstances are tragic, I am glad our colleagues are taking a closer look at this.

The plan our colleagues now support aims to achieve the right goal, but it offers the wrong solution. Their plan calls for energy independence--a goal which I support. But they tout conservation as the only way to reach this goal. This approach would put us on the wrong course and fail to solve the larger problem.

Our country is in the midst of an energy crisis, and we cannot conserve our way out. To suggest otherwise does a great disservice to all Americans. We don't need a hollow plan, we need results.

We cannot get out of this crisis by blaming Americans--who are just trying to live their lives, run their businesses, and get to and from work--for the situation we are in. This is not solely a consumption problem; much of this crisis stems from misguided policies which have locked up our lands and prevented us from building new refineries.

The only way to become energy independent is through a combination of initiatives. Conservation is one part of the broader solution.

But we also need to develop renewable and alternative sources of energy and invest in nuclear power and we must develop our domestic oil and gas resources which exist on Federal lands.

The end to this crisis lies in the balance between conservation and development. Yes, I believe that Americans need to conserve our energy resources, but this alone won't solve our energy crisis. To suggest it will is to greatly mislead the American public.

We need to get serious about our energy policy.

My good friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, has told us we must expand on the Energy bill.

I agree with Senator Domenici, and I look forward to working with him on an energy policy for this country that makes sense.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita exposed a weakness in our domestic production and refining capability, weakness some of us have been warning about for years. All Americans have been hit with higher energy prices in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Some colleagues have expressed concern that this situation was compounded by price gouging. Senator Inouye and I, along with our colleagues on the Commerce Committee, are evaluating several bills pertaining to that issue. In the coming days, we will be moving forward to address some of those concerns.

In the process of reviewing these concerns, the claims by those on the west coast were of particular interest to me. Due to current restrictions in the MMPA, it is almost impossible for companies to expand their refineries to increase supply. The provision repealed by my bill is currently impacting the largest refinery on the west coast, affecting more than 300,000 gallons of fuel per day.

I introduce this bill to enable us to get petroleum resources to west coast States quickly and urge my colleagues to support this initiative.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: The next amendment is the Wyden amendment on export of oil. I make a parliamentary inquiry if that amendment is subject to the Byrd rule.

Madam President, as long as this amendment is not changed and comes back to this floor in the conference report, it will not be subject to the Byrd rule.

Is there time in opposition?

In principle, I am opposed, but as long as it does not violate the Byrd rule, I will not vote against it.

I yield back the time.

Mr. President, this amendment would close off the analog broadcasting too close to the auction of spectrum. We currently have an April 2009 date. The auction date is January of 2009. It is just too close together. The leases cannot be processed. There is no way those auction proceeds can be available until licenses are issued. This amendment would end analog broadcasts before the funds are available for the converter box fund or the translator conversion fund authorized by S. 1932. We need help in this transition. The amendment makes spectrum available to public safety groups before they can put it to use because we are informed public safety groups must have at least 3 years to prepare for the use of spectrum.

We are going to get them the spectrum. They will not be able to use it until we have the money to bring about the transition. I believe our whole committee should oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, this bill already contains the first portion of this amendment: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the existing law applies to this area of Alaska.

This is a vindictive amendment. It says if my State decides to pursue a legal right that all production in ANWR would stop. There would be no further production. I don't understand this amendment because we have been a State since 1958. We have not filed that suit. That resolution passed the State legislature almost every year, and it is an act of the State legislature, but the Federal law governs this area and it says a 50-50 split, which applies to all States.

I yield to the Senator from New Mexico what time we have left.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I have sort of a unique role in this argument, since I was in the Interior Department in the Eisenhower administration and helped create the Arctic Wildlife Range. It was specifically on this Coastal Plain, specifically specified it was subject to oil and gas leasing.

Then I was here at the time that Senators Jackson and Tsongas offered the amendment that created the 1002 area and, as this chart shows, it was specifically excluded from the Refuge. It is not wilderness. It never was wilderness, and it has never been closed to oil and gas exploration. Their amendment required approval of Congress of the action--of the results of the environmental impact statement required by the Jackson amendment.

Mr. President, I am wearing an Alaska bolo tie today because two of my friends, Laura and Crawford Patotuck, brought this to me and asked me to wear it when ANWR was up before the Senate. They are part of the Alaskan Native group that is here to support this bill and support proceeding with the oil and gas leasing.

I have heard some comments this morning about whether this is right, to have this provision in this bill. The Constitution of the United States does not require 60 votes to pass a bill. That is only a procedural rule of the Senate on how to end filibusters.

Filibusters plague the Senate. They continue to plague this Senate, and that is why the Budget Act was passed, to prevent filibusters on items that would bring about increased income of the United States.

Many people are talking about the 50-50 split between the Federal Government and the State of Alaska under the Mineral Leasing Act. It so happens I was the one who suggested it to Delegate Bartlett at the time the Statehood Act was before the Congress, that we add to that, the Statehood Act, the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act which guaranteed to Alaska 90 percent of the returns from oil and gas leasing in Alaska because we were not subject to the Reclamation Act.

The Reclamation Act no longer has any application. So Congress has, for many years now, divided these receipts on a 50-50 basis, and this bill, when it becomes law, will specifically so divide it. That is not an issue that would be appealable to the courts. What would be appealable would be the original change in the law by the Congress if we ever decided to file that lawsuit. Alaska has never filed such a lawsuit.

I hope we will not hear anymore about whether this provision of this bill applies to Alaska as it applies to all Western States that have public lands. There is a 50-50 split on the royalties that are derived from oil and gas leasing.

One of my real joys this year was to receive a letter from my old friend, James L. Buckley, Judge Buckley, former Senator from New York.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be placed on each desk because I think all Senators should read it.

Let me read it:

Dear Ted: Twenty-six years ago, after leaving the Senate, I

was a lead signatory in full-page ads opposing oil

exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve that

appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post. I

opposed it because, based on the information then available,

I believed that it would threaten the survival of the

Porcupine caribou herd and leave huge, long-lasting scars on

fragile Arctic lands. Since then, caribou populations in the

areas of Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan pipeline have increased,

which demonstrates that the Porcupine herd would not be

threatened, and new regulations limiting activities to the

winter months and mandating the use of ice roads and

directional drilling have vastly reduced the impact of oil

operations on the Arctic landscape.

In light of the above, I have revised my views and now urge

approval of oil development in the 1002 Study Area for the

following reasons:

1. With proper management, I don't see that any significant

damage to arctic wildlife would result, and none that

wouldn't rapidly be repaired once operation ceased.

2. While I don't buy the oil companies' claim that only

2,000 acres would be affected, even if all of the 1.5

million-acre Study Area were to lose its pristine quality (it

wouldn't), that would still leave 18.1 million acres of the

ANWR untouched plus another five million acres in two

adjoining Canadian wildlife refuges, or an area about equal

to that of the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont,

and New Hampshire combined. In other words, it is simply

preposterous to claim that oil development in the Study Area

would ``destroy'' the critical values that ANWR is intended

to serve.

3. In light of the above, it is economic and (to a much

lesser degree) strategic masochism to deny ourselves access

to what could prove our largest source of a vital resource.

I emphasize this:

Having visited the Arctic on nine occasions over the past

13 years (including a recent camping trip on Alaska's North

Slope), I don't think I can be accused of being insensitive

to the charms of the Arctic qua Arctic. I just don't see the

threat to values I cherish.

With best regards,

Sincerely, Jim.

There is a man who has changed his views. I do believe we should all take

into consideration the fact that he led the movement, started the movement against the exploration and development of this Arctic Plain.

I must express my amazement that our colleague from Washington has introduced an amendment to strip this provision from the budget reconciliation. In 1980, former Washington Senator, and my great friend, Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson wrote a letter discussing the importance of ANWR.

He wrote this about ANWR:

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.

I say this: Not only does ANWR serve our important national security interest, it also serves the economic interest of the State of Washington.

The economic health of Puget Sound is tied directly to Alaska as illustrated in a report commissioned by the Tacoma-Pierce County and Greater Seattle Chambers of Commerce. Of particular importance is oil production from the North Slope.

Washington's refining industry purchases almost its entire crude oil stocks from Alaska. The report states that ``direct impacts from the refining of Alaska crude oil within the Puget Sound region include 1,990 jobs and $144.5 million in labor earnings. In 2003, oil refineries in Puget Sound imported $2.8 billion worth of crude oil from Alaska.'' Alaska oil provided 90 percent of the region's refinery needs.

Washington's refineries provide much needed gasoline and jet fuel supplies to the Pacific northwest. Without the opportunity to expand production at the Cherry Point refinery, more than 300,000 gallons of fuel per day are lost. This is fuel desperately needed by consumers in both Washington and Oregon.

Oregon has no refining. The refinery I mentioned is the one running Alaskan oil. Oil development is a major contributor to the health of Washington's economy. As oil wealth in the State of Alaska increases, so does the demand for Puget Sound goods and services. Perhaps this is why the chambers of commerce support balanced development of ANWR.

They understand that with Prudhoe Bay declining--it today only produces around 950,000 barrels a day from a high of 2.1 million barrels--additional oil resources must be developed to ensure the continued economic viability of the Puget Sound region.

The development of Prudhoe Bay contributed more than $1.6 billion into the Washington economy. ANWR alone is estimated to create over 12,000 new jobs in Washington alone, in addition to the revenues it will generate for the State.

None of these benefits will take place if Senator Cantwell's motion 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 aviat1on industry.

The rise in fuel prices is greatly impacting our aviation industries. 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 triple that of 1998 and 1999--continues to hamper the health of this critical industry. Every dollar per barrel that 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. This should be particularly worrisome to those members who represent constituencies in the airline industry and those businesses that support the airline industry.

At a time when Boeing, America's leading aerospace company, is struggling to reassert its dominance in the aviation field, the high prices of oil are devastating.

Fuel costs are the second biggest costs for airlines. Given these high costs, airlines can not afford to purchase additional aircraft.

And air transport, which generated revenues of $1.5 billion in 2003, are also at risk from high fuel prices.

Washington State consumes 17.6 million gallons of petroleum per day, including 7.3 million gallons for gasoline and 2.5 million gallons per in jet fuel. It produces none of its oil.

I ask the Senator from Washington, where will your constituents get oil if they do not get additional supplies from ANWR, when the pipeline in Alaska--the only known producing area--is declining almost daily?

Twenty-four years ago, during the debate on Anilca, I worked closely with Senator Scoop Jackson and Senator Paul Tsongas to ensure part of the coastal plain of Anwr remained open for oil and gas development.

Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas promised oil and gas activity would take place in the coastal plain subject to an environmental impact statement which would have to be approved by Congress. In the spirit of compromise, they created section 1002 of Anilca, which set aside 1.5 million acres along the coastal plain of Anwr for oil and gas exploration and development.

It is not wilderness. It has never been wilderness. It has never been withdrawn. It has always been available for oil and gas development. It was once passed by the Senate, and President Clinton vetoed the bill.

I have fought now for 24 years to make sure that the promise made to me personally--made here on the floor of the Senate by Senators from Washington State and Massachusetts, Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas--and that promise has never been fulfilled.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 19 million acres.

It is shown on this chart. The area set aside for oil and gas exploration the 1002 area, or the coastal plain is 1.5 million acres. Because of advances in technology, only 2,000 acres of this 1.5 million will be needed for production.

To put this in perspective, ANWR is about the size of South Carolina. The area needed for development is about the size of Dulles Airport. Development in the Coastal Plain is the equivalent of building an airport in South Carolina.

I want to go to chart 2 and show the Coastal Plain.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Coastal Plain holds between 5.7 billion barrels and 16 billion barrels of oil.

Again, I emphasize that people are talking about 2 percent of the known reserves. We have a lot of unknown reserves, particularly in Alaska and the West, which have not been explored, and the area off our coast going toward Russia on the Outer Continental Shelf. Two-thirds of the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States has not been explored.

We are capable of producing, as the Senator from New Mexico said, a lot more oil and gas. We can produce 876,000 to 1.6 million barrels a day by developing the Coastal Plain. That would fulfill our pipeline backup. It is our country's single largest prospect for future oil production.

And, the actual amount of recoverable oil could be much larger. Remember, the first estimates at Prudhoe Bay were that there would be 1 billion barrels of recoverable oil. In the last 30 years, we have recovered 14 billion.

In 1973, at the time of the oil embargo, our country imported one- third of its petroleum. We now import almost 60 percent of our oil. By 2025, we will import almost 70 percent.

American dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security. We now rely on unstable and unfriendly regimes to meet our energy needs.

The coastal plain can produce over 36 million gallons of gasoline, jet and diesel fuel, heating oil, and other products a day. It can heat over 8.1 million homes, or provide all of the gasoline that Californians consume each day. America needs American oil.

America needs this American oil.

People who say it is only a day's supply are talking about if there were no other source of oil. It is a preposterous statement to say this area contains very little oil.

In 2004, our merchandise trade deficit was $651.52 billion, 25.5 percent of this deficit came from net imports of crude and petroleum products, which cost over $166 billion.

We are paying higher prices to meet our energy needs, and we are flushing jobs and money out of our economy.

Americans are paying more for gasoline, heating fuel, and consumer products. In the past 4 years, the average

price of gasoline has increased by $1.84 a gallon--that's a 75 percent increase!

For every $1 billion we spend to develop our domestic resources, we create 12,500 jobs. This means in 2003 we lost over 1.3 million jobs by importing oil instead of producing it here--1.3 million jobs outsourced in order to bring oil from other sources.

By developing our resources on the coastal-plain, we will create between 700,000 and 1 million American jobs. We will put up to $60 million back into the U.S. economy each day instead of sending it to foreign countries.

Probably one of the things most important to me is that our Alaska Native people overwhelmingly support development on this Coastal Plain. Out of the 231 Alaska Native villages, only one has opposed this. Yet they are the poster children for all of these environmental ads you see. One, the Gwich'in Village, opposes the initiative in this bill.

Alaskans overwhelmingly support development in the Coastal Plain; they know we can develop this resource in an environmentally responsible way.

Alaska natives overwhelmingly support development on the Coastal Plain. Of 231 Alaska native villages, only one--the Gwich'in--opposes development.

And the tide of public opinion among all Americans has begun to turn; they know development in the Coastal Plain will help lower energy prices, reduce our dependence on unstable and unfriendly regimes, and grow our economy.

Let me turn to charts 4 and 5 because I think this is very important.

We constantly hear that this is a pristine place, the most beautiful place on Earth. That is the area in wintertime. I defy anyone to say that is a beautiful place that has to be preserved for the future. It is a barren wasteland, a frozen wasteland, and there are no porcupine caribou at all there during that period of time.

The Coastal Plain is a frozen, barren land for 9 months of the year with an average temperature of minus 50 degrees.

A majority of wildlife species use the foothills of the Brooks Range, about 60 miles from the Coastal Plain.

Put up the other chart, please.

This is what it looks like in the summertime.

My colleague, Senator Murkowski, the great partner I have, showed where there was one well drilled with a 6-foot pipe sticking up. The rest of it is constant, constant tundra, no trees, no beauty at all.

The porcupine caribou herd uses the Coastal Plain for only 6-8 weeks per year, when development will not take place.

The herd spends the majority of its time in Canada, which has no seasonal or bag limits for native residents. It is estimated that an average of 2,900 caribou are harvested in Canada each year.

There is no evidence that oil development will harm the porcupine herd. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary. The central Arctic herd at Prudhoe Bay has grown ten fold, from 3,000 in 1974 to over 30,000 today.

There is no evidence that oil development has harmed the reproductive activities of polar bears, a replica of which I proudly wear on this tie.

Resource development and conservation are not mutually exclusive.

Oil and gas companies use ice pads and roads to protect tundra and the ecosystem. They employ directional and multi-lateral drilling to reach reservoirs of oil and gas, which reduces the impact to the land.

In fact, the Clinton administration issued a report which demonstrated that oil and gas can be removed in an environmentally sensitive manner.

Development of the Coastal Plain will be subject to the strictest environmental standards in the world. With these standards and our advanced technology, responsible development and conservation can coexist.

Very clearly, a vote for this motion is a vote for the status quo, which my good friend Ronald Reagan used to say ``is Latin for `the mess we're in.' ''

A vote for this motion closes our domestic energy resources to production. It's a vote for continuing to import 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 motion is a vote to increase home heating bills and transportation costs. It's a vote to diminish our national security by relying on rogue nations and unstable regimes for our energy needs.

Who would expect a Senator to come to this Senate floor and offer an amendment that exports 1.3 million American jobs every year, will cost us $200 billion annually by 2025, and leaves our national security vulnerable to the whims of unfriendly regimes. But that's exactly what this motion does.

A vote for this motion is not just a vote against developing our domestic resources on the Coastal Plain. It's a vote for closing our Nation's single greatest prospect for future oil production and backing out of the promise that was made to Alaskans--and all Americans--when Senators Scoop Jackson and Paul Tsongas created section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

A vote for this motion is a vote against Alaska Natives, who overwhelmingly support development on the Coastal Plain because they know we can balance stewardship and conservation with resource development.

We cannot continue to increase our dependence on foreign oil. We have the capability to continue to increase our production of oil and gas.

When you look at this proposal, this is an amendment to export 1.3 million American jobs overseas. It will cost us $200 billion annually by 2005. Why is it in this bill? That is the reason we want to stop that. We want to stem the flow of jobs leaving this country. We do not want to go beyond 60 in importing our oil. As a matter of fact, we want to reverse that. We want to go back to the promise that Senators Jackson and Tsongas made when they created this portion of this area, a reserve for exploration and development. The Coastal Plain has been set aside for exploration and development.

I close with this: An old bull is what they call us when they reach my age in the Senate, World War II type. We remember when a Member's word meant something in the Senate and when the word of a Member who has left the Senate was still fulfilled. We remember when the Senate would do everything in its power to honor a promise.

In our State, we quote Robert Service: ``A promise made is a debt unpaid.'' This is a debt unpaid to this Senate, to the country, to Alaska, to proceed with what Senators Jackson and Tsongas outlined in 1980, to explore for and develop that oil in the area, if it is possible to do so.

I understand other Senators wish to be yielded time.

How much time would the Senator like to have?

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

I object.

We have only 4 minutes left.

Are we still on the parliamentary inquiry?

We could enter into a time agreement now, could we not, on the Wyden-Talent amendment?

The current time agreement refers to a Talent amendment. I ask unanimous consent that be the Wyden-Talent amendment.

Therefore, that is for the purpose of the Senator being able to yield time to Senator Wyden to start the process.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator such time as he requires.

How much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I state for the record, we are prepared to accept this amendment, provided it waives the Byrd rule for further consideration by the Senate and also waives the Byrd rule as applied only to this amendment in a conference report when it returns to the Senate.

I reserve the remainder of our time.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an inquiry, we are prepared to accept the amendment which specifically says the Byrd rule is waived for this amendment only, and this amendment, if totally unchanged, as it returns from the conference, but only this. But I am informed that--and I inform the Senator--if this goes to conference, any Senator could raise the Byrd rule against the whole report if it remains in there, unless we also waive it as to this section.

Has the amendment been filed?

Mr. President, must it be filed now to comply with the existing time agreement?

I object.

Parliamentary inquiry: Can that amendment be amended later, if it is left alone right now?

I thought we had a time agreement to ban second-degree amendments.

Another parliamentary inquiry: Is that amendment subject to a Byrd rule point of order now?

I didn't hear the Chair. Yes or no?

Further parliamentary inquiry: If that is adopted and brought back in the conference report, it would be subject to the same consideration?

Another parliamentary inquiry: That is an amendment to the Cantwell amendment?

It is an amendment to the provisions in the bill.

That is correct.

Mr. President, is it possible to pose a question through the Chair to the Parliamentarian as to whether, if adopted, it would be subject to the point of order under the Byrd rule?

I seem to be hearing that it is because of the condition of the bill right now, that the time has not expired, et cetera. Is the Parliamentarian ruling because of the time situation or giving us an actual ruling now on application of the Byrd rule to this amendment?

Do I have any time remaining?

I will use 30 seconds.

I intend to raise a point of order against this amendment unless it is clearly ruled at the time the vote takes place that the Byrd rule will not apply to this amendment here on the floor of the Senate now, during consideration of this bill, or when the bill comes back as a conference report.

I reserve the remainder of the time.

I am prepared to yield back the balance of our time if the Senator is. I yield back the balance of my time conditioned on the Senator yielding back the balance of her time.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to this amendment. This amendment puts what we call a hard date only 2 months after the January 28, 2008, auction required by the bill. That is when the auction will commence. It is too soon to move immediately to a hard date in April. The auction could take weeks to conduct, and even after it ends, there are several months necessary for the FCC to decide to whom to award the final licenses. Without the licenses, new wireless providers cannot build their systems, so a tremendous amount of spectrum would not be in use during this period of time.

Importantly, the auction proceeds will not be available until the final licenses are issued. That would mean consumers would face having their analog TVs shut off before the converter box program could be implemented, as is suggested by our bill. American consumers will have to pay more to watch television if this amendment is adopted because the analog cutoff date Senator McCain's amendment requires is premature.

The General Accounting Office and the Consumers Union estimate there are 20 million U.S. television households that rely upon over-the-air reception for their television signal. Broadcasting systems are ready to convert, but we cannot get this done until we have the converter sets so they can continue to watch their TVs. Their old sets will not respond to the converted signal. Over-the-air reliant households disproportionately represent America's most vulnerable. Low-income senior citizens are disproportionately dependent on over-the-air TV; 43 percent of Latino households rely solely on analog television; and African-American households are 22 percent reliant.

We have picked this date based upon the recommendations of the Congressional Budget Office to maximize the return from the sale of the spectrum. It is money that is necessary.That is why this portion of the bill is here--to raise money.

To the extent the money is not used for consumer boxes, a provision in our bill requires all money not used raised by the spectrum goes to reduce the deficit. It is a major deficit reduction concept. Having the hard date out to 2009 is going to raise more money. We need that additional money to add to the interoperability portions of the reconciliation bill before us.

The April 7 date is simply too close, as I said in the beginning, to the auction date of January 28. There has to be time between the auction date and the hard date to ensure that the communications capability is there, the set-top boxes will be there, and that a portion of the television spectrum reserved for the first responders is going to be the first date available.

Moving this date is not going to make it available sooner because of the time delay that will take place after the auction on January 28. It is just not physically possible to have a hard date that close to the auction date because of the time necessary to compute the value of these offers, to go through the process of accepting the high bids and having the people bring forth the money to assure they are sound. The whole concept of this bill has been to maximize the return.

The House date is December 31, 2008. Ours is April of 2009. We moved it there to get away from the Christmas season, to get away from things such as the Super Bowl. The longer it goes, the longer people will buy new digital-ready televisions and will not have to rely upon the transponders--the set-top boxes, we call them--that will be purchased with this money. Our combination is, if we can get this bill passed this year, we will have Christmas 2006, 2007, and 2008 before we get to the point where we have to buy these set-top boxes. The more sets sold to new purchasers, the less it will cost to buy these boxes.

I do hope the Senate will see the wisdom in what we have done. We are working closely with House Members on this issue. We believe we will reach an accommodation on the time, and it will be a 2009 date.

I urge the Senate not to adopt the McCain amendment because it will destroy the process we are in, a very calculated process of ensuring that the auctions take place, and then following those auctions, there is enough of a period to satisfy the goal of raising the money in order that we may get to the total transition through the set-top boxes, 8911, interoperability, and all the things that follow in the amendment. For those who read our amendment, it is partially amended by the McCain provision.

I don't know if there is anyone else to speak in opposition, but I urge the Senate not to adopt the amendment.

Mr. President, is there any time left?

I yield back the remainder of the time.

What is the time situation on this amendment?

Mr. President, I will use the time in opposition if I need it, and some others may want to speak.

Our committee worked hard on this bill, our portions of this bill, and the $3 billion associated with the converter box funds was derived from a CBO estimate based upon the problems that exist in the so-called analog world. There are an estimated 73 million analog TV sets not connected to cable or satellite.

Our reconciliation measure ends all analog broadcasts on April 7, 2009. By that date, all televisions that rely on antennas have to be equipped with a digital analog converter box. We call that the set-top box. The cost to the consumers to purchase the box is estimated to be $3 billion. This amendment would cut that to $1 billion. That is not enough to meet the problem of these 73 million analog sets.

I call attention to the Senate that there is a difference between the House approach and the Senate approach. The House would use a voucher system. The House estimates there are fewer sets than our estimate of 73 million.

We believe by using the date--that is also subject to a question on an amendment that has been offered by the Senator from New Hampshire-- by using the hard date of April 2009, we estimate we will raise a considerable amount more money than a date closer to the present day. The impact of this far date is we have three periods where television sets are bought in great quantities, and during the Christmas period.

To the extent the analog sets are retired by digital-ready televisions, we will not need money. This $3 billion is up $2 billion. We do not automatically throw in the $3 billion. This merely makes available the estimate of $3 billion and earmarks that.

However, I call attention to the Senate that money not spent is earmarked in this bill to go to deficit reduction. It is not going anywhere else. There are specific items.

There will be some amendments offered. I specifically refer to the amendment on page 94, line 10, that any amounts unexpended, unobligated at the conclusion of the program shall be used for the program described in paragraph 3, which is, in fact, the basic debt reduction system.

There are some other complications here that I have gone into before. One of them is, we ought to be able to take this bill to the House for conference and work out with them the best way to deal with the set-top boxes. One of the great problems is that there currently is a range of estimates, as the Senator has mentioned, from $40 to $60. If it is $60, we do not have enough money. If it is $40, we have a little bit left over, and it will automatically go to debt reduction.

I personally think we have problems in the areas that were devastated by Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The problem there is the televisions were destroyed altogether. It may well be that the cost in those areas will be substantially more than the costs of the set-top boxes. We have to decide that. Someone has to decide to what extent and where the money is coming from to help those people who are not able to buy their television sets, not able to replace them. Will FEMA do it? Are any other agencies going to do it? We will hear arguments that some of this money should be reserved for that. I, personally, support that. This is a fund that is designed to make sure we stay connected with these people.

One of the real problems about the devastated areas--and having lived in an area that was devastated one time by a monstrous earthquake--it is hard to stay in touch without the local news without television, without connection with the outside world. We should think about earmarking some of this money to go into the devastated areas.

Does the Senator from Montana wish time?

I am pleased to yield.

The Senator is right. There are a series of items held in reserve: $200,000 for converting low-power television stations and television translators; $1.5 billion for emergency communications, which includes $1 billion for interoperability, $250 million for the national alert system, $50 million for tsunami warning and coastal vulnerability problems; we have $250 million to deal with the Senator's E911. But after that, the provision strictly says if the proceeds of the auction exceed the sums of payments under all of those, that amount has to go to deficit reduction.

Again, it is an estimate.

I appeal to let us go to conference and work this out. I favor putting as much money as possible into debt reduction, but there are some people who are going to have to have help in these disaster areas beyond the moneys we have already provided in the other systems. That argument will come to the Senate. I intend to support the concept of using a portion that we have earmarked, $250 million, and there is a move for that to become $1 billion. We are not spending the money. We are authorizing expenditures up to this amount. What is not expended for the programs goes to debt reduction. That is very important for the Senator to remember.

If the Senator wishes to comment on my comments, I will yield.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains in opposition?

Mr. President, I think we ought to make certain that the people are providing service to these analog sets now. The National Association of Broadcasters opposes this amendment. Furthermore, I oppose it for the main reason that we are bringing into this country enormous supplies of what are called digital television sets now, but they are not digital-ready. They are still analog, in effect.

We wanted to put on this bill a provision that said you cannot bring into

this country or manufacture in this country a set, from a certain date--say, 90 days from now--that is not digital-ready.

It cannot operate without a converter box. The difficulty is, consumers are buying thousands and thousands and thousands--into the millions now--of sets, believing they are ready, but they are not ready. They are digital, but they are not digital-ready. They will not operate without a converter chip or converter box. Under the circumstances, we rely on the estimate of 73 million sets.

Now, it isn't an argument: How many converter boxes should there be? Every set that is out there needs a converter box to operate. I am told by my staff, 20 million sets are sold annually, and still more than half of them are analog. There are a few of the very high-priced sets that are digital-ready. Some of these sets are in the bedrooms of the elderly. They are in elderly care centers. Every room has a little set.

Now, who are we to say there are sets out there that don't get converter boxes? That may be determined at a later date by the Congress in a bill we have to bring forward, a new communications bill. But for this estimate now, we have to rely upon the estimate we have, that there are at least 73 million sets out there that need a converter box, once we reach the hard date. So that is where the $3 billion came from.

Again, I thank my friend from Nevada for his kind comments. But we have to operate on the basis of dealing with the worst case in terms of providing money. We have done that. This is the worst case we can face, this $3 billion. So we have authorized up to $3 billion. To the extent it is not used, and not used for 9/11, not used for interoperability, not used for first responders, not used for disaster areas, it will go to debt reduction.

Our committee has raised far more than was requested of us, and that is the problem.

We have the luxury of an estimate that says the spectrum auction will bring in more than $10 billion. That may be conservative. Many of my people tell me, once we reach that hard date, the demand for this spectrum is going to be so large that we cannot even estimate the amount of money that is going to be there. So $3 billion is not out of hand.

I urge my friend from Nevada to realize we are not appropriating the money. We are saying up to $3 billion. I urge the Senator not to change that now. Let us go to the House. Let us work with the best available information. Let us try to get this bill back to the Senate as a conference report before this year ends.

If we do not do it and get that other amendment in there somewhere that limits the future production of analog, or less-than-digital-ready sets, this demand for money is going to go up. All those sets are being bought now. Those new sets need a converter box. They are not digital ready.

So again, I thank my friend. I do not think there is anyone else who wants to speak on this amendment. I am prepared to yield back my time, based upon the Senator's comments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, I want to state that this amendment restores $125 million previously appropriated to New York as part of the emergency supplemental bill under chapter 11, relief and recovery, passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Bush on January 10, 2002.

The funds would be used for such purposes as mental health treatment and long-term health monitoring of rescue and recovery personnel.

The amendment is fully offset.

I ask for a voice vote on this amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I call for the regular order.

Cloture Motion

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

Mr. President, the highway reauthorization bill recently passed the Congress. It was several years in the making and the result of a compromise. Now one of our colleagues feels it is his responsibility to rewrite portions of that bill to achieve his goals, not those that are expressed in the law itself.

Unfortunately, the manner in which the Senator wishes to do this has no impact on his constituency or any other constituency except Alaska. I fought for statehood as a member of the Eisenhower administration. I have been here now almost 37 years. This is the first time I have seen any attempt by any Senator to treat my State in a way differently from any other State. It will not happen. It will not happen.

I can remember many times when other Senators have stood on the floor and used parliamentary devices that kept people up for 2 to 3 days. This is not the way to treat a State. We are a sovereign State. If the Senate wishes to take part of the highway money and share it with New Orleans, we would be happy to join any other State. We

would be happy to make a fair contribution in any other program. We have already notified our State that many of the things we have been able to get funding for in the past may not be available now for a period of time until we build the area affected by Katrina or Rita.

Our State suffered the largest disaster in America preceding Katrina, the 1964 earthquake. I remember it well. I remember being a young lawyer and being forced to borrow money to keep the doors of our law firm open; to borrow money to repair my home that was destroyed by that earthquake partially; to borrow other money to help in terms of the concepts of rebuilding in that area.

Our State faced that recovery, and I think we understand what the people of New Orleans and the Katrina and Rita areas face. We now have another such storm coming upon us.

The amendment that is before us now will affect only Alaska. It will help Louisiana. We want to help Louisiana but not solely at the expense of Alaska. That is not a way to treat a sovereign State. This is something on which I think every Senator must examine his or her own conscience. What would they do if they were faced with the proposition that only their State's allocation of funds under a protective program would be taken and given to another State at the time of disaster?

This is not the way to meet a disaster need, to turn to the smallest--we have the smallest allocation per area of any State in the Union for roads. We only have a very small road system. The reason is that so much of our State has been withdrawn, and it is not possible to build roads through the Federal lands that are set aside for parks, wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness areas. We are limited, and we must build bridges so that we can tie together two areas that are inaccessible otherwise.

That is because of withdrawals and set-asides of lands in our State that are owned by the Federal Government.

I ask my friend--and he is my friend--from Oklahoma, how would he explain to his people at home, if he went home after the Senate had taken money away from his State previously authorized by law and signed by the President?

That is not the way to treat a sovereign State. These funds that are necessary for bridges in Louisiana must be provided. That is a given. After the disaster in Florida, when I was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, notwithstanding the opposition of the administration, I assisted the delegation from Florida to obtain money to rebuild their bridges and roads. That was from the General Treasury. That may have caused a deficit. We tried our best to offset it, and I think to a major extent we did offset it.

The request that has been made now to offset gulf coast spending using the highway bill money, only that allocated to the State of Alaska, is unacceptable to this Senator.

I am now President pro tempore of the Senate, the second oldest Member of the Senate, the fourth in service in the Senate, and I again say to my friend from Oklahoma I have never seen it suggested to single out one State and say, You pay for a disaster that happened 5,000 miles away.

We want to shoulder our fair share of the burden. We will do so. Those who want to look at this amendment as some sort of amendment that should be adopted because of misleading stories in the press, I warn you, it could happen to you, too. These bridges are necessary. Just take the one across the Knik Arm near our largest city of Anchorage. Anchorage is surrounded by water on two sides and by a military reservation on one side and a national forest on the other. There is no way to expand. Across this Knik Arm is land owned by the State and by private people that we could expand to. We have been trying to get a bridge across there for as long as I can remember. But because we are a small State, it is hard to do.

The time came when one of the Members of our delegation was chairman and he kept pressing and pressing and finally convinced his colleagues that bridge should be funded in a way that takes a sizable portion of our State's funding under formula money, and a portion of the so-called above-the-line money, money for grants for special projects, and made it possible that the Knik Arm bridge could be built.

The other bridge is in the southeastern area. It is the largest forest in the United States and is practically all withdrawn, practically all owned by the Federal Government and set aside for wilderness areas or nonpublic uses. There is one portion available to us, but it takes a bridge to get to it. That is State land and private land, the only land, really, in that kind of area that can be developed because all the rest of it is owned by the Federal Government and set aside, with the exception of some Native lands that are a little bit farther away.

We can argue about the needs. That argument should have been made at the time the highway bill passed. The highway bill allocated money for those. It comes out, not from the Treasury, but out of funds paid by people who buy gasoline and people who buy parts for cars, people who buy various things that require them to contribute to the highway fund.

I have come quite often to the floor and described my State to the Senate. I remind the Senate, we have half the coastline of the United States. We are one-fifth the size of the whole United States. We have more withdrawings for parks, wildlife refuges, wild and scenic areas, wilderness areas than all the rest of the States put together. We need bridges because we need to get from one private area to another private area.

When I first came to the Senate, funds were allocated to a State based on the amount of land that was Federal land in a State that was withdrawn. That was dropped after Congress, in its wisdom, withdrew so much of Alaska. If we had the old formula, I can tell you, the Senator from Oklahoma wouldn't even understand the money we would get because more than half of the Federal land in Alaska is withdrawn, and the Federal Government will own, in any event, almost two-thirds of Alaska no matter what happens in the future.

To have a representative of the Federal Government say Alaska doesn't need bridges, take them away from them and repair those bridges that went down in the disaster is absolutely wrong. Absolutely wrong.

I remember as a young man in California when someone suggested there ought to be a bridge, what we call the Golden Gate, over the San Francisco Harbor. People said: You can't do that. That is a bridge to nowhere. I remember those words, ``a bridge to nowhere,'' a bridge up in Marin County where hardly anybody lived. It was a place for cows and ranchers. Today what is it? It is a thriving part of the great State of California.

How about the bridge from New Orleans to Baton Rouge--absolutely going into wilderness. No one ever expected it to develop. That is part of the area that suffered from the disaster because it was so heavily developed.

How about the bridges that cross island to island going down the Keys in Florida? I remember as a young man going overseas, going to the edge of that area. You couldn't travel by road. You had to have a boat like you do in Alaska. You still have to do that in Alaska. There are no bridges between Alaskan islands. But go to Florida and where are they? It is a beautiful drive. Every one of those bridges was paid for by highway money.

There were those who said at the time: That is a waste of taxpayers' money. It wasn't taxpayers' money anyway. It is highway-user money, and highway-user money should be used for disasters only on the basis considering what the impact is on the highway system itself.

I have a unique role in my State because I not only served in the Eisenhower administration, trying to urge the admission of Alaska to enter the Union, but it was my honor to come here after Alaska had only been a State for 10 years. In December I will have been here 37 years, as I said.

I come to warn the Senate, if you want a wounded bull on the floor of the Senate, pass this amendment. I stood here and watched Senator Allen teach the Senate lesson after lesson after something was done to Alabama that he didn't like.

I don't threaten people; I promise people. I came here and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I came here to represent a

State that is an equal member of this Union. Notwithstanding how many people are there, we are to be treated the same as any other State. On the floor of the Senate we are equal to any other Senators, my colleague and I. This amendment is an offense to me. It is not only an offense to me, it is a threat to every person in my State. We came here to have the same rights, the same privileges that were made available to any other State and to the people who live in those States. While we are one-fifth the size of the United States, we only have 13,485 miles of road. That is less than King County, WA. Why? Because the Congress, in its wisdom, has withdrawn so much of our land, as I said, that you can't build roads.

Oklahoma is one-eighth the size of Alaska. It has almost 10 times as many roads.

If the concepts involved in this bill were applied to States as the Nation moved westward, we would still have wilderness beyond the Mississippi. I really cannot understand this. Roads are the lifeblood of this country. That is what made us free, having the ability to move, having the ability to use individual transportation, having the ability to drive from Oklahoma to Alaska if you want to. I urge the Senator from Oklahoma to try to do that. When I first came here I drove home when I went home every year because I couldn't afford to fly. In those days we got about seven trips, I think, annually. That didn't apply to our families at all.

The problem I want to leave with you is this: 70 percent of our State is accessible only by air or by sea. Within our State we have to have different types of transportation. My colleague, Senator Murkowski, has pioneered now a concept of trying to build some rural roads to connect villages so we will reduce some of the Federal costs of supporting those individual villages. Each has an airport, each has a school, each has a clinic. These are redundant facilities. We can build better ones. One could have a good school, one could have a good airport, one could have a good fire department. We could do better for them and save money if we had more road money. But we do not get it.

We do not get it because of the donor theory that came to this Senate about 15 years ago, which says for the people who pay in these taxes, it goes back to the States in which they paid the money--not where they live, but where they paid the money. So the States that are fortunate enough to be on interstate highways where people stop to buy gasoline, they get more money than the States where they don't stop for gasoline. It makes less sense than anything I have ever known.

In any event, we live under that system. We have needs. We are still a developing area. We are the last frontier of the United States. These bridges may go nowhere, as far as some people here are concerned, but they are very important to our future.

I think it was the Memorial Bridge in Milwaukee that was first called the bridge to nowhere, the Daniel Webster Hoan Bridge. That now serves as a major north-south connector between downtown Milwaukee and the neighborhoods in that city.

The Astoria Bridge on the Columbia River was referred to as a bridge to nowhere. It connects Astoria, OR, to what was once an empty shore. It now carries 6,000 cars a day, over 2 million people a year. We deserve the same right to grow.

Currently, the bridge will serve military families who live in the Anchorage area and pay very high costs. Because of the cost of land, the rent is very high. That is because of the lack of land to expand. They will go across to the Matanuska Valley and have a better place to live.

All I want to do is put the Senate on notice. I have been asked several times today if I will agree to this version or that version of the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. No. No, I will not, unless it treats all States the same way.

We are here to ask you, those of us from Alaska, to believe that fairness is fairness; equality is equality. Being a member of the 50 States is being a State with the right to be treated equally to any other State. That is why the two of us are here, to assure that happens. Praise God I have the energy to do what I may have to do, to prove to the Senator from Oklahoma I mean what I say. This amendment is not going to pass.

The Senate is warned. It is wrong to do this to any State. It is wrong to put colleagues in a position where we have to go home and explain why we couldn't prevent an amendment in which what is being done to our State has never been done to another State--never.

This is not the time to start this process. I urge my friend from Oklahoma to reconsider this, reconsider what he is getting us into. The amendment may pass, but if it does the bill will never be passed. If it does, I will be taken out of here on a stretcher.

I yield the floor.

I find myself in a strange position, as I indicated to the Senator from Oklahoma. Earlier today, I indicated to the Senator that I would suggest a series of second-degree amendments. I had under consideration second-degree amendments. It is my understanding now the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is filed as a second-degree amendment to the Bingaman amendment, am I correct?

Mr. President, I have a small Bible to start reading, a few editorials from my State concerning this bridge and some of the comments that have been made in other States. I am willing to try to work out a system so that all States contribute to assisting our sister State in Louisiana and recognize their prior need for money, but I am entirely unwilling to take money from Alaska only. I think the Senate ought to have that on notice. I will suggest the absence of a quorum, and I will object to taking it off until we have some way that the Senate might consider an alternative to the Senator from Oklahoma or until a quorum is present and the Senate decides otherwise than what I have decided.

I will put the Senate on notice--and I don't kid people--if the Senate decides to discriminate against our State and take money only from our State, I will resign from this body. This is not the Senate I came to. This is not the Senate I devoted 37 years to. If one Senator can decide he will take all the money from one State to solve a problem of another, that is not a union. That is not equality and is not treating my State the way I have seen it treated for 37 years.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the first amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma will be considered first.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2165, as Modified

How much time remains?

Mr. President, I would add to my colleague's comment to say this concept is a concept that every State should think about because if it can be done on a bridge, why not do it on any type of event where a Senator would like to have money for their State, but they say take it from another State because they do not need it. I made a statement earlier today that in my 37 years I have never seen this. I have never seen a request that money for a disaster be taken solely from a project in one State to help a disaster in other States.

We are a disaster-prone State. We have more disasters than any other State in the Union. Remember our 1964 earthquake. We have tsunamis. We have all types of disasters. But we have never tried to take moneys from other States to meet our costs.

I urge the Senate not to start this process.

I yield back the time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, my colleagues, Senator Murkowski, Senator Frist, and I offered the second amendment establishing the principle that if this type of money is to be made available to an area of disaster, it would come equally from the projects that are authorized under the highway bill and above the line area for bridges.

In view of this vote taken, I would be willing to withdraw this amendment. I understand there is objection to that. There is already a unanimous consent request that the amendment be presented.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Again, I say some Members voted the way they did on the Coburn amendment because of the presence of this amendment and wish to be recorded in favor of this amendment.

I yield my time.

The time hasn't expired yet.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Wasn't there time on both sides for that amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that there be equal time for anyone to speak for 2 minutes, at least. I have 2 minutes on my side.

I ask unanimous consent to allow 2 minutes for the Senator from Illinois on my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2065

Mr. President, in fiscal year 2002, Congress provided $5 million in the Department of Defense appropriations bill to transport and distribute wheelchairs to the victims of overseas conflicts, landmines, and crippling illnesses if matched by private funds. These funds were allocated from amounts provided to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DSCA. Since that time, the DSCA has worked with a nonprofit organization called the WheelChair Foundation to deliver over 120,000 wheelchairs to nearly 100 countries, including 5,810 to Afghanistan; 2,400 to Iraq; and over 3,900 to Jordan.

I believe it is vital that we plan and invest not only to win the wars we fight, but also to win the peace. In that regard, this program has been an unqualified success. The hope and chance for a new life that a wheelchair can provide to someone who could never afford one has value beyond measure. Additionally, this program gives us the opportunity to leverage Federal support with the efforts of the nonprofit sector to accomplish more than we could do alone.

The funding specifically earmarked for this initiative in fiscal year 2002 will likely be exhausted within the year. The legislation we are now considering would provide the full amount of the President's request for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid of $61 million. It is our hope that funding will be available for this activity in the coming fiscal year if appropriate humanitarian needs are identified.

I understand the concerns that my colleagues have regarding poorly understood illnesses that have affected military personnel in nearly every conflict since the Civil War, and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I want to lend my support to this important research.

AM2 and coatings removal technology

I say to the distinguished Senator from Montana that I appreciate him bringing these important programs to my attention and to the attention of the Senate. I look forward to working with him on these and other important matters that affect our military and national defense in the days and weeks to come.

I move to reconsider the vote.

If I may have a moment, I thank our staff for their dedication and hard work putting this bill together. I point out to the Senate the people I am going to name are our staff. They work with both Senator Inouye and me. We work as a seamless team in the subcommittee: Sid Ashworth, Charlie Houy, Lesley Kalan, Brian Wilson, Brian Potts, Kate Kaufer, Mark Hoaland, Alycia Farrell, Katy Hagan, Betsy Schmid, Nicole DiResta, Mazie Mattson, Janelle Treon, Kate Fitzgerald, Jennifer Chartrand.

Let me recognize a very dedicated, wonderful staff person of our subcommittee, Mazie Mattson, who is now going to retire after 25 years of working for Congress. This is Mazie's final Defense bill. We are extremely grateful to her for her sincere loyalty and tireless efforts and very gracious support she provided to each and every one of us on both sides of the aisle on our subcommittee. She will be greatly missed. We wish her family and her husband, Bill, all the best. We thank you very much, Mazie. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached letters from various foreign officials be printed in the Record. They have all sent their condolences for the Hurricane Katrina tragedy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Friday, October 7, 2005, at 10 a.m. to hold a business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

Nomination

1. Julie L. Myers to be Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Legislation

1. S. , an original bill to repeal the increased micro-purchase threshold.