Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is my understanding and my intent.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their accommodation on this matter. It is very meaningful to Alaska. Rural Alaska will be extremely pleased to see this continued progress. I also wish to again thank Carol Spils.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The floor manager is correct. I thank my friend from Rhode Island.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, seeing no one wishing to speak, I would like to address very briefly the matter that I have spoken of on a number of occasions. That is the opening up of the arctic oil reserve known as ANWR. And I would like to submit some particular documentation that has come into my office in the last few days, but I will be specific in my reference. As the President and my colleagues are aware, the idea of opening up the Arctic oil reserve, or ANWR, is not a new idea. It was left in 1980 to the Congress to make a determination as to the appropriateness of opening up an area in the coastal plain, approximately 1.5 million acres out of the 19 million acres which make up ANWR. Approximately 8.5 million acres of that has already been set aside in a permanent wilderness by the 1980 legislation. Another 9.5 million acres has been set aside in refuge, leaving approximately 1.5 million acres in the so- called 1002 area for the disposition of Congress. At this time, we are faced with a dilemma as to whether or not, indeed, this is in the national interest. It is a similar argument to that which prevailed in the seventies when there was question as to whether or not the Prudhoe Bay area would be open for exploration and development. That was over 20 years ago, Mr. President. Prudhoe Bay has been producing approximately 25 percent of the total domestic crude oil produced in the United States over the last 18 years. Today, Prudhoe Bay has declined. The production from that field has dropped from approximately 2 million barrels a day to 1.5 million barrels a day. But the arguments over whether or not we should open up the Arctic oil reserves of ANWR and the arguments that prevailed 20 years ago are basically the same: Can we do it safely? What will be the effect on the caribou? What will be the effect on the moose and the other animals that frequent the area, the bird life and so forth? We have seen over the last 18 years of operating the Prudhoe Bay field an extraordinary set of events relative to the wildlife. We have seen the caribou herds grow from 3,000 to 4,000 animals to the current level of approximately 24,000 animals. It has been recognized in the oil fields, as in other areas where the caribou frequent that there are approximately three detractors and a number of animals that can sustain themselves, and those are individually related to the number of wolves in an individual area or other predators such as bear, the winter--the heavy snows take a toll on the caribou--and, of course, overgrazing is also a difficulty. In any event, we have seen the growth of these herds, which suggest, indeed, we have the capability to safely manage with a reasonable amount of development in an area given time. My point is, again, we are reflecting the same arguments that were before us in the seventies, applicable today, but we have the proof, we have the scientific evidence and we have the redundancy, if you will, of recognizing that this population has increased and, with proper management, there can be little effect on the animal population associated with development in the high Arctic. Further, there has always been a question as to the safety relative to the advanced technology. We have proven that we can limit the footprint dramatically. We have seen an extensive field in Prudhoe Bay reduced as new fields have been found, as stepouts of Prudhoe Bay, approximately 7 years ago, brought in a field known as Endicott which only took in 56 acres of surface land, yet it was the 10th largest producing field in North America. Today, it is the 7th largest producing field. There was another question as to what effect this activity would have on the residents, the Eskimo people themselves. I quote from a statement, a news release from the North Slope Bureau and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation: The Eskimo people are working their way out of Federal dependency. Because of their success, they state they are being opposed at every turn by the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs-- And they named Ada Deer in that regard and suggest she opposes successful native American corporations and organizations. She, in their opinion, wants them to be dependent on the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But they indicate that they are well aware of what dependency brings: a state that kills self-initiative, that breeds a welfare society. They further conclude that they want to follow the American way, the old way of independent self-help and individual responsibility, family values and sense of community. In other words, Mr. President, they want to have the same opportunities that other Americans enjoy: jobs for their children, tax bases for their communities, running water that other Americans enjoy. So as a consequence, as we debate the merits of whether ANWR should stay in the reconciliation package, as has been deemed by action taken by both the House and the Senate, we are faced with this question of national security interests as well. Currently, we are importing about 51 percent of our total crude oil. Back in [[Page S 17527]] 1973, we were importing 34 percent. Obviously, we are sending our jobs and dollars overseas and the justification of that, in my mind, is very questionable. If the oil is there, and volumes would have to be, it is estimated it would create 257,000 jobs associated with the life of the field. This would be the largest single jobs producer that we can identify in North America today. So, as a consequence, if we add up the attitude of the Eskimo people who see this as an opportunity for stimulating their own economic livelihood, the national energy security interests of our Nation, the tremendous number of jobs, the realization that we have been able to develop safely oil and gas in the Arctic, as evidenced at Prudhoe Bay, there is no good reason why this administration should not support opening up ANWR to drilling. It is anticipated that the lease sale would bring in approximately $2.6 billion. That would be split 50 percent to the Federal Government and 50 percent to the State of Alaska. As a consequence of that, it would give our engineers, our scientists, our technical people a great challenge to address new technology to make the footprint even smaller. It has been estimated that if the oil is there, the development scenario can be accomplished in an area of less than 3,000 acres. The first estimate of this given a couple years ago was approximately 12,500 acres. Sometimes it is difficult to generate a comparison, but if one looks at the Dulles International Airport complex, that is about 12,500 acres, and a comparison would be if the State of Virginia was a wilderness. That is, I think, the picture that we can best use as an analogy to try to describe the vast distances associated with the Arctic and the realization that the footprint would be very, very insignificant. Finally, Mr. President, I refer to an editorial in Nation's Business in November 1995. It is entitled ``How Energy Policy and the Budget Intertwine.'' It reads: Consider a situation in which the central government holds direct ownership of properties containing most of the resources critical to economic growth. It also controls access to vast additional areas holding still more of those resources. This central government has adopted policies that in effect block the country's citizens from using such materials even as their availability from other sources declines. The nation fitting this description is the United States. The federal government owns one-third of the lands that hold most of the remaining reserves of oil, natural gas, timber, low-sulfur coal, gold, silver, other minerals, and timber. In addition, our government controls the outer continental shelf (OCS), the undersea area extending from three to 100 miles off the East, Gulf, and West coasts. Federal lands, notably the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and areas under federal jurisdiction, notably the OCS, contain vast reserves of oil and natural gas. But national policy has been to keep those resources locked up, and the nation's dependence on imports continues to grow as domestic production declines. The United States now relies on imports for more than half of the crude oil it consumes, and much of that comes from countries with long records of political instability. Within 20 years, imports will represent 60 percent of domestic consumption. Given such dependence, even a slight drop in the supply from overseas could inflict severe economic harm. The consequences of excessive reliance on imports were starkly demonstrated in the 1970s, when foreign manipulation of supplies and prices caused economic disruptions that continued into the next decade. There are, however, grounds for optimism that the nation will not be held hostage to political events in the oil- exporting nations. Congress is considering legislation to permit exploration for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and development of sites deemed productive. With a membership far more attuned to economic realities than its predecessors, this Congress might be the one that adopts the rational energy policies the country has long needed. Environmentalists are predictably sounding alarms that ANWR development would destroy vast areas of pristine natural beauty. The facts show otherwise. The refuge consists of 19 million acres, and the development ``footprint''--the visible results of development--would affect 15,000 acres, one-twelfth of 1 percent. Oil exploration and production activity would be limited to the coastal plain area, which is by no means a pristine sanctuary but contains, among other things, abandoned military bases. Even then, the footprint would affect only 1 percent of the designated coastal area. Advances in oil-production technology, such as horizontal drilling, would further minimize the environmental impact. Horizontal drilling, with pipes stemming underground from a single pad, sharply reduces the number of traditional oil rigs needed to produce from a wide area. Given the economic necessity of developing the nation's oil reserves and the negligible environmental consequences, the proposal to open a relatively tiny portion of the ANWR should command broad support in Congress--broad enough to override the veto that has been threatened by President Clinton because of pressure from environmentalists. There is an additional benefit from opening that small portion of the ANWR: The federal government would realize $1.3 billion in oil royalties over seven years, money that would help achieve the goal of a balanced federal budget. The revenue potential of resource development on other government-owned and/or government-controlled lands in one that should be taken into consideration as Congress seeks ways to achieve its goal of a balanced budget by 2002. Such land use not only could help meet crucial resource needs but also could help achieve a fiscal policy that would provide a tremendous boost to the economy generally. Although the federal government holds the legal title to one-third of U.S. lands the key to offshore resources, the officials who make up that government have failed in the past to recognize that they were actually trustees and that ultimate ownership and control was held by the American people. Those people want wise use of their properties. Such use includes preservation where warranted and economic utilization where that is warranted. A Congress under new management appears to be aware of that distinction. The president should also grasp it.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the last item I want to submit for the Record is a letter dated November 10, 1995, to the President of the United States from Mr. George Duff, president of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would ask, is there an order for the day relative to taking up other legislation at 3 o'clock?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In view of the fact that I do not see any other of my colleagues calling up anything, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for approximately 15 minutes so that I may make a statement and enter a bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair, and wish the President a good afternoon. (The remarks of Mr. MURKOWSKI pertaining to the introduction of S. 1425 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation cosponsored both by myself, Senator Hatch, Senator Stevens and Senator Bennett. The purpose of this legislation is to allow State law to continue to determine revised statute covering 2477 right-of-ways, as it is known in the West. Mr. President, for almost 130 years State law has applied to the validation of R.S. 2477 right-of-ways. Simply stated, that is the ``right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.'' Originally, the grant was section 8 of the Mining Act of 1866. The provision then became section 2477 of the revised statute, R.S. 2477, until its repeal by the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, known as FLPMA. Section 706 of FLPMA repealed R.S. 2477. However, section 701 states--and I quote--``Nothing in this act terminates any valid right- of-way existing on the date of approval of the act.'' Similarly, Section 509 of FLPMA states that nothing in title V on right-of-ways-- and I quote--``shall have the effect of terminating any right-of-way or rights-of-use heretofore issued, granted, or permitted.'' Under the authority of R.S. 2477, highways were established to achieve access through the public domain. It was a primary authority under which many existing State and country highways were constructed and operated over Federal lands in the Western United States. Mr. President, in my State of Alaska many of these access routes were nothing more than perhaps a dogsled trail or footpath, but nevertheless provided essential routes from village to village for Alaska's Native people and other residents of the State. At that time it was a territory. [[Page S 17531]] The original grant was viewed as an open-ended offer that only required acceptance to fully vest. Once a right-of-way is fully vested, significant property rights would be attached to it. Historically, the Department of the Interior looked to the State highway laws as the standard for acceptance of the grant. The Federal Government did little to keep track of the number or location of these rights-of-ways for more than a century. However, the Department of the Interior proposed regulations in August 1994 to make it extremely difficult to establish right-of-way claims across Federal lands established under this law. The Department of the Interior claims the reason they are doing the regulations is to make a logical process to get R.S. 2477 rights-of-ways recognized. Mr. President, the regulations would actually do the following: They would override State law with restrictive new definitions of ``highway'' and ``construction.'' They would put a cloud in the title of R.S. 2477 roads, treating them as invalid until proven valid. They would prevent any further expansion of scope of an R.S. 2477 right-of- way. And it would prevent making the right-of-way any wider. It set a sunset of administrative and court action on validity of R.S. 2477 by extinguishing claims not filed within 2 years, and 30 days after final ruling. Further, construction and maintenance would not be permitted without approval of DOI with 3 days' notice, preventing the fixing of washed- out roads until the Department of Interior gave approval. The draft Department of the Interior regulations are nothing more than an attempt to prevent legal access across our public lands. It would impose an almost impossible task on State and local governments to make all claims for rights-of-ways on Federal lands, and then have to validate each and every one of those claims. Nowhere would this be more burdensome than in my State, Alaska, twice the size of Texas, and less roads than the State of Vermont. This is clearly an effort to make sure Alaska and other Western States, Utah and others, would not have access across Federal lands for valid rights-of-way egress and access. It is really an effort to take away the rights of the States to validate and use their rights-of-ways. This legislation which I have introduced today will define those who can file a claim, will put a time line on the filing of these claims. It will ensure there are validated claims according to State law at the time of the assertion of those claims. Further, it would put the burden of proof on the Secretary of the Interior if he wants to challenge their validity. Additionally, legislation introduced herein will not, first, create any new rights-of-ways. If they were nonvalid in 1976, they will not be valid today. Further, we will not supersede existing environmental protections. We will not trample on private lands or Native lands. And, finally, Mr. President, the Federal Government has better things to do, in my opinion, than put unnecessary burdens on the Western States. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I would also add, Mr. President, that the State of Alaska has only been a State for 36 years. We are still very much involved in making claims based on the use across public lands for access. And so it is very much a real part of developing our State today. And I would urge my colleagues to recognize it. In most of the other States this process was done 100 years ago.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation cosponsored both by myself, Senator Hatch, Senator Stevens and Senator Bennett. The purpose of this legislation is to allow State law to continue to determine revised statute covering 2477 right-of-ways, as it is known in the West. Mr. President, for almost 130 years State law has applied to the validation of R.S. 2477 right-of-ways. Simply stated, that is the ``right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.'' Originally, the grant was section 8 of the Mining Act of 1866. The provision then became section 2477 of the revised statute, R.S. 2477, until its repeal by the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, known as FLPMA. Section 706 of FLPMA repealed R.S. 2477. However, section 701 states--and I quote--``Nothing in this act terminates any valid right- of-way existing on the date of approval of the act.'' Similarly, Section 509 of FLPMA states that nothing in title V on right-of-ways-- and I quote--``shall have the effect of terminating any right-of-way or rights-of-use heretofore issued, granted, or permitted.'' Under the authority of R.S. 2477, highways were established to achieve access through the public domain. It was a primary authority under which many existing State and country highways were constructed and operated over Federal lands in the Western United States. Mr. President, in my State of Alaska many of these access routes were nothing more than perhaps a dogsled trail or footpath, but nevertheless provided essential routes from village to village for Alaska's Native people and other residents of the State. At that time it was a territory. [[Page S 17531]] The original grant was viewed as an open-ended offer that only required acceptance to fully vest. Once a right-of-way is fully vested, significant property rights would be attached to it. Historically, the Department of the Interior looked to the State highway laws as the standard for acceptance of the grant. The Federal Government did little to keep track of the number or location of these rights-of-ways for more than a century. However, the Department of the Interior proposed regulations in August 1994 to make it extremely difficult to establish right-of-way claims across Federal lands established under this law. The Department of the Interior claims the reason they are doing the regulations is to make a logical process to get R.S. 2477 rights-of-ways recognized. Mr. President, the regulations would actually do the following: They would override State law with restrictive new definitions of ``highway'' and ``construction.'' They would put a cloud in the title of R.S. 2477 roads, treating them as invalid until proven valid. They would prevent any further expansion of scope of an R.S. 2477 right-of- way. And it would prevent making the right-of-way any wider. It set a sunset of administrative and court action on validity of R.S. 2477 by extinguishing claims not filed within 2 years, and 30 days after final ruling. Further, construction and maintenance would not be permitted without approval of DOI with 3 days' notice, preventing the fixing of washed- out roads until the Department of Interior gave approval. The draft Department of the Interior regulations are nothing more than an attempt to prevent legal access across our public lands. It would impose an almost impossible task on State and local governments to make all claims for rights-of-ways on Federal lands, and then have to validate each and every one of those claims. Nowhere would this be more burdensome than in my State, Alaska, twice the size of Texas, and less roads than the State of Vermont. This is clearly an effort to make sure Alaska and other Western States, Utah and others, would not have access across Federal lands for valid rights-of-way egress and access. It is really an effort to take away the rights of the States to validate and use their rights-of-ways. This legislation which I have introduced today will define those who can file a claim, will put a time line on the filing of these claims. It will ensure there are validated claims according to State law at the time of the assertion of those claims. Further, it would put the burden of proof on the Secretary of the Interior if he wants to challenge their validity. Additionally, legislation introduced herein will not, first, create any new rights-of-ways. If they were nonvalid in 1976, they will not be valid today. Further, we will not supersede existing environmental protections. We will not trample on private lands or Native lands. And, finally, Mr. President, the Federal Government has better things to do, in my opinion, than put unnecessary burdens on the Western States. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I would also add, Mr. President, that the State of Alaska has only been a State for 36 years. We are still very much involved in making claims based on the use across public lands for access. And so it is very much a real part of developing our State today. And I would urge my colleagues to recognize it. In most of the other States this process was done 100 years ago.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony regarding S. 1271, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1995. The hearing will be held on Thursday, December 14, 1995, it will begin at 9:30 a.m., and will take place in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Karen Hunsicker or Betty Nevitt at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today is an especially happy day for Alaskans, as we join in wishing our senior Senator Ted Stevens a happy 72d birthday, (November 18.) Ted, in his 27th year in the Senate, has set an example for how all of us should fight tirelessly for our home States, while still maintaining the wisdom to put the good of the Nation first. While Ted currently ranks eighth in the Senate in overall seniority, third among Republicans, and is just one of 109 Senators who have served in the body for 24 or more years--out of 1,815 members since 1789, he still can be found meeting every Alaskan Close-Up student group or talking with residents about health concerns. His encyclopedic knowledge of Federal-Alaska State relations is legendary in Washington. In the Senate, which has lost much of its institutional memory, Ted is able to offer insights on everything from passage of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act, to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, from passage of the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation Act to the Alaska Lands Act. His recollection of events is so extraordinary not only because he helped draft the Alaska Statehood Act while serving at the Department of Interior during the Eisenhower administration, but because he has had a hand in virtually every Federal issue affecting Alaska over the past three decades. While Ted served 8 years as assistant Republican leader, whip, handling key national issues, especially defense matters, he is respected as a fierce defender of Alaska interests. He especially has been willing to put aside personal ambition for the good of his State. Many forget that Ted sacrificed his seniority on the Commerce Committee to move to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee during the key fight over the Alaska Land Act. He then moved back to Commerce to represent Alaska fisherman--prove positive that Ted always puts Alaska first. It is only justice that he is today chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs--the panel upon which he has labored for years to the great benefit of Alaskans. Certainly no Alaskan has done more during his career then Ted Stevens. A Harvard Law School graduate, an Air Force veteran who saw service in China during WW II, the chief counsel to the U.S. Department of Interior, a member of the Alaska House of Representatives who served as speaker tempore and majority leader, and U.S. Senator. Ted Stevens is a model of public service to his State and Nation and an inspiration for all of us. I, join with all Alaskans, to thank him for his skill, drive, and dedication during his years in Washington and offer him a heartfelt good wish for many, many more years of service to the State and Nation. Nancy joins me [[Page S 17460]] in congratulations to both Ted, Catherine, and daughter Lilly. It's been great fun and a true privilege working with you my friend.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if the Republican leadership is successful in negotiating an agreement with the President on a continuing resolution, it appears that the Senate may not be in session on Monday, November 20. For that reason, today I would like to take a moment and wish the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd, an advance Happy Birthday. On Monday, Senator Byrd will celebrate his 78th birthday. Mr. President, the public often views the Senate engaging in bitter partisan debate. Yes, we Republicans have our differences with the Democrats. But when the debates are over, and the votes have been cast, the public would be surprised to learn that we put aside our party labels and share friendships. And so, the Republican Senator would like to reflect on the brilliant career of Senator Byrd. He has spent more than half of his life serving the people of West Virginia in the Congress. Six years in the House and 37 years in the Senate. This year, he cast a record 14,000th vote; and just 3 weeks ago, on October 27, when the Senate set a 1-day record of 39 votes, it was Senator Byrd who offered the 35th amendment that broke the record. But it is not just longevity that will provide Senator Byrd historical statute in the Senate. It is his record of service. He has served as majority whip as well as majority and minority leader. And he has served as President pro tempore and chairman of the Appropriations Committee. What is even more remarkable is the Senator's in-depth scholarly knowledge of history. Our distinguished Republican leader, Senator Dole, has often commented that students ought to receive college history credit simply by listening to the speeches of Senator Byrd. Over a period of several years, Senator Byrd stood on the floor of the Senate and provided an oral history of this institution. These speeches ultimately were printed in two bound volumes and provide the best overview and understanding of the evolution of this 206 year old institution. In 1993, Senator Byrd went to the floor on 14 separate occasions to speak on the history of the Roman Senate. These discourses were not designed solely for history students. Instead, they were intended to provide all of us with a perspective on the roots of American government and the extraordinary importance of maintaining unfettered congressional control over the power of the purpose. On one occasion, Senator Byrd spoke for 6 hours on the floor and provided the Senate a broad overview of the evolution of parliamentary government in England and how evolution influenced our Founding Fathers in shaping this Government. Mr. President, I could go on and on about Senator Byrd's history lessons. But what I want to do is suggest that when future historians are writing about the 20th century Senate, Senator Robert Byrd will surely be remembered as one of the giants who followed in the footsteps of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. In particular, I believe Senator Byrd should be commended for his passionate defense of the rights of the minority in this body and to unlimited debate. Many Americans are often frustrated with the slowness of the pace of the Senate. But Senator Byrd rightly notes that in permitting unlimited debate, the Senate stands as a bulwark against tyranny and the passion of the moment. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Byrd for his wisdom. I wish him a very happy birthday this coming Monday and my sincere regards to his lovely wife Erma.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, with the passage of the conference report on the reconciliation bill last night I thought there should be an explanation of the provision on the leasing of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration and production. The Senate and the House versions of the budget reconciliation had responsible provisions for the leasing of the area. However, there was a substantial difference in the approach and language in the two measures. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee I thought it would be important to outline the intent of the conferees on the ANWR provision. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis which provides a detailed description of the ANWR provision, and other material, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the answer to the Senator's question is yes. When the oil is sold from the Weeks Island facility, which is located in Louisiana, the Department of Energy is directed to so do in a manner that does not disrupt the marketplace or have any noticeable impact on prices. Perhaps the best thing to do is to quote from the statutory language contained in conference report: ``The Secretary shall, to the greatest extent practical, sell oil from the reserve in a manner that minimizes the impact of such sales upon supply levels and market forces.''.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas is correct. The leaks she refers to require the oil contained in the Weeks Island facility to be removed, and the facility to be decommissioned. There is no choice, and the Department of Energy already has that process underway. It is only with the greatest hesitancy that we are requiring the sale of any oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. As the Senator from Texas knows, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is essential for the protection of our energy security in the event of oil supply interruption, such as the ones we suffered through in 1973 and 1979. That is why the conference report contains provisions which provide funding for the replacement of this oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met and exceeded its targets for the conference. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Young of the House Resources Committee and to Chairman Bliley of the House Commerce Committee for their cooperation, and the hard work of their staff, that enabled us to conclude our negotiations quickly and in an amicable fashion. When the President submitted his budget earlier this year, he proposed to sell the Power Marketing Administrations, except for Bonneville, to the present customers at the discounted value of the repayment obligations. That proposal was not particularly well thought out as our hearings in committee demonstrated. Nonetheless, the revenue assumptions underlying that sale became part of the target and instructions given to our committee. While the members of our committee recognize that serious attention needs to be given to the future of the PMA's, especially in light of declining budgets for the agencies that currently manage the generating and marketing of power from Federal facilities, we also are in agreement that responsible solutions are simply not possible within the time frame of Reconciliation. The committee was faced with a Herculean task of finding other options to achieve the savings scored to our committee. The magnitude of the task is best illustrated by a comment from one of the staff on the Budget Committee that if they had known of other options, we would have been scored with them as well. As I stated, the committee has met and exceeded its instructions. I want to express my appreciation to our ranking Minority Member, Senator Johnston, for his cooperation and the assistance from his staff in helping us. Our committee has always prided itself on its bipartisan professional approach to legislation, and that is demonstrated in our product. The conference agreement includes the sale of certain lands in California contained in the House measure as well as the sale of the helium reserves contained in both the Senate and the House. The agreement also contains the leasing authority for the Coastal Plain in Alaska that was contained in both the Senate and House versions and which was a specific assumption in our instructions. The conferees made several minor changes to make the program work more efficiently and resolved uncertainties in allotments due Alaskan natives within the Coastal Plain. I know that some opponents of the program have suggested that the Federal Government will never see the revenues estimated from leasing on the Coastal Plain due to the provision in the Mineral Leasing Act made by the Alaska Statehood Act that provides 90 percent of all revenues to the State. The statement of managers is explicit on this subject. We are not in any manner altering the provisions in the Alaska Statehood Act nor the Mineral Leasing Act. Those provisions continue to apply in Alaska outside the Coastal Plain. When Congress set aside the Coastal Plain, it reserved to itself the decision on whether the area should be opened to leasing or not, and if so, under what terms and conditions. The decision has been that the area should be leased, but that it should be leased under very specific conditions tailored to the unique characteristics of the Coastal Plain. Suggestions that development will have adverse environmental effects are wrong and the result of either misinformation, misunderstanding, or deliberate mischaracterization. Our committee has spent several years crafting very specific language to ensure that development will occur in an environmentally sensitive manner, and that language is incorporated in the conference agreement. In developing a separate leasing program for the Coastal Plain, the committee decided to adopt a 50-50 revenue sharing formula. The conference language is absolutely clear that the program set forth is the sole authority for the leasing program, not the Mineral Leasing Act. I will have more to say about this leasing program, but for the moment I simply want to say that I sincerely hope that the President would stop listening to the ideological fanatics that prowl the White House and the Federal agencies and examine the realities of this leasing program. This Nation is once again over 50 percent dependent on foreign oil supplies. That doesn't seem to bother the President, but it should. The President should reexamine his position on this issue. His opposition is wrong from the standpoint of our energy security, it is wrong from the standpoint of the economy, it is wrong from the standpoint of the environment, it is wrong from a budget standpoint, it is wrong from the standpoint of domestic employment, it is wrong from the standpoint of our responsibilities for Native Alaskans--his opposition is simply wrong. The conference agreement also includes various reclamation and water provisions. The agreement retains the Senate language repealing a prohibition in current law that prevents irrigation districts from prepaying their outstanding debt. The legislation also provides for the transfer of the Collbran Project in Colorado, and Senator Campbell deserves the credit for working out the problems with that provision. The agreement also includes a modification to the Raker Act that would increase the payment by San Francisco for the use of a portion of Yosemite National Park from $30,000 to $2 million. The charge has not been changed in over half a century. The House had set the charge at $8 million while the Senate had adopted a formula used by FERC with a floor of $597,000. The Agreement also includes two provisions of the House version--the transfer of Sly Park and authorization for prepayment of Central Utah Project debt--with minor modifications. After considerable discussion with the House, we also were able to come to agreement on amendments dealing with Federal oil and gas royalties and hardrock mining. The reforms will increase Federal receipts and provide a fair and workable system that will increase collections from oil and gas operations and completely reform the federal hardrock mining program. I fully understand that the provisions dealing with hardrock mining will not satisfy those whose prime motivation is the elimination of any domestic mining industry, but that was not our objective. The provisions of the Conference Agreement recognize private property rights, provide for fair market value with a reverter for patents, and impose a royalty on future production. The conference agreement includes the Senate provisions dealing with privatization of Department of the Interior aircraft services, with certain modifications as well as the sale of the Alaska Power Administration, refinancing of the Bonneville Power Administration, export of Alaska oil, and [[Page S 17312]] OCS deepwater royalty relief, all of which were included in the conference agreement on S. 295 which both the Senate and House have approved and the President supports. After considerable work, the conferees were able to agree on provisions dealing with ski area permits, National Park Service concessions, and recreation fees at areas administered by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service. We were able to retain the Senate provision that would return 80 percent of all new receipts to the collecting agency for direct use for visitor services and facilities. The conferees also agreed to the language that markedly improves the climate for the privatization of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. We also included language providing for the disposal of surplus property by the Department of Energy and for the lease of excess storage capacity within the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. As a result of problems at the Weeks Island site, the reserves need to be drawn down and relocated. The conferees agreed that 32 million barrels of the reserve should be sold, but that 50 percent of the revenues from the lease of excess capacity should be made available for additional purchases to complete the reserve beginning in 2002. Mr. President, none of this could have been accomplished without long hours and hard work by the professional staff of the committee. I want to express my appreciation to them. Howard Useem worked on the Alaska Power Administration sale and the Bonneville refinancing as well as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve language. Brian Malnak worked on the Interior asset sales, Mike Poling worked on the oil and gas royalty and OCS provisions, and Jim O'Toole worked on the National Park Service fees and concessions language. Jonathan Schneeweiss made major contributions in trying to keep our provisions straight, and I want to especially express my gratitude to the support staff, Camille Heninger, Betty Nevitt, Jo Meuse, Kelly Fischer, Judy Brown, Julia Gustafson, and Gerry Gentry--who really did all the work. I also want to thank the minority staff who demonstrated the high level of professional commitment that has always characterized our staff. During the last reconciliation measure, they sought to involve us and we tried to be helpful. We are grateful for their assistance this time around. Ben Cooper, Tom Williams, David Brooks, Shirley Neff, Bob Simon and Cliff Sikora all made important contributions. I especially want to thank Sam Fowler for his assistance and ready recourse to humour during tense moments. In addition to his overall responsibilities for the entire package, his work on the U.S. Enrichment Corporation was invaluable. Although all the staff performed well, some made extraordinary contributions. I want to acknowledge Karen Hunsicker, who shepherded the conference wit the House Commerce committee to an early and successful conclusion, especially on the U.S. Enrichment Corporation and DOE asset sales. David Garman did outstanding work on the US Enrichment Corporation and Andrew Lundquist has labored long and hard on both the Alaska export provisions and the leasing program for the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge. Michael Flannigan made the hardrock mining negotiations as exciting as possible and kept a degree of uncertainty up to the very last moment. Kayci Cook, the Committee's Bevinetto Fellow, demonstrated competence, patience, and professional judgment in working on concessions and park fees. Finally, I want to express my appreciation to the senior staff of the Committee--Gregg Renkes, our Staff Director, Gary Ellsworth, our Chief Counsel, and Jim Beirne, our Senior Counsel. Not only have they handled individual portions of the package with their usual professional expertise, but they have also had the pleasure of dealing with the Budget Committee, the Congressional Budget Office, the Parliamentarian, Legislative Counsel, and their House counterparts, as well as various Senators and staff. They handled the floor procedures, and made certain that all the members of the committee were covered, and are responsible for the successful completion of the conference.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Federal oil and gas royalty chapter in the Balanced Budget Act is the only legislative initiative taken in the last 13 years to cost-effectively increase the Nation's third largest source of revenue--mineral royalties from Federal lands, more specifically, oil and gas royalties. This legislation would establish a comprehensive statutory plan to increase the collection of royalty receipts due the United States. These mineral receipts will help reduce our budget deficit. Without this legislation, an ineffective and costly royalty collection system will continue, perpetuating long delays and uncollected royalties. Let me make absolutely clear, Mr. President, that this legislation does not apply to Indian lands. It applies only to royalties from oil and gas production on Federal lands. This is historic legislation, Mr. President, in that it would empower States to perform oil and gas royalty management functions, such as auditing and collecting, that are essential to bringing additional receipts to the Treasury and the States within a 6-year limitation period established by this legislation. By expanding the States' role in performing Federal oil and gas royalty management functions consistent with Federal law and regulation, States are provided a great economic incentive that also benefits the Federal Treasury. The more aggressive States are in performing delegated functions, the greater their share of net receipts under the Mineral Leasing Act. That act requires 50 percent of all royalties from Federal onshore oil and gas production to be shared with producing States. Chapter 4 establishes a framework for the Federal oil and gas royalty collection program that will bring in an additional $51 million in revenues to the U.S. Treasury and provide an additional $33 million to the States over 7 years. These additional receipts result primarily from: First, Requiring the Secretary of the Interior and delegated States to timely collect all claims within 6 years rather than allow the claims to become stale and uncollectible; second, requiring early resolution and collection of disputed claims before their value diminishes; third, requiring Federal and State resources to be used in a manner that maximizes receipts through more aggressive collection activities; and fourth, increasing production on Federal lands by creating economic and regulatory incentives. Without the statutory framework of this legislation, the Nation's third largest revenue source--the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service is the third largest source of revenue behind the IRS and Customs Service-- will continue to be subject to greatly delayed collections and the risk of reduced receipts due to noncollection over time. To achieve the goal of maximizing collections through more timely and aggressive collection efforts, this legislation would do the following specific things. It would require the Secretary, delegated States, and lessees to take action respecting an obligation within 6 years from the date that obligation became due. The provisions require that judicial proceedings or demands--for example, orders to pay--be commenced or issued within 6 years of the date when the obligation became due or be barred. Use of legal authority other than that provided in this section--for example, the Debt Collection Act--is not precluded so long as judicial proceedings or demands are commenced or issued within the 6-year period. It is not intended that such other legal authority be used as a substitute for, or to circumvent, emasculate or otherwise frustrate, the 6-year limitation period. Lessees would be required to maintain their records during the 6-year period in order to verify production volumes. The legislation would expedite the administrative appeals process at the Interior Department by establishing a 30-month limitation on appeals. Presently, over $450 million in disputed claims languish in a bureaucratic appeals process and continue to lose value. By speeding up the appeals process, the Secretary would increase the value of these obligations and collections to the Treasury. The legislation also would level the playing field for royalty payors by authorizing the payment of interest on overpayments. Present law requires lessees to pay interest on late payments and underpayments as a disincentive for being tardy or underpaying royalties, but does not compensate lessees who overpay royalties and who lose the time value of that money through some legitimate error. This legislation would provide for payment of interest on overpayments without regard to the amount of the overpayment. And finally, Mr. President, the legislation would authorize the Secretary to allow prepayment of royalties and [[Page S 17296]] to provide other regulatory relief for marginal properties, and require that adjustments or requests for refunds for underpayments or overpayments be pursued within a 5-year window coinciding with the 6- year limitation period. Mr. President, CBO estimates that chapter 4 provisions will procure savings of $6 million in fiscal year 1996, $40 million in 5 years, $51 million in 7 years, and $66 million in 10 years. We believe this legislation will do more than simply bring receipts to the Government earlier than they would arrive under the present system, Mr. President. We believe a more efficient, effective, and aggressive program, combined with some of the economic incentives and regulatory relief, will bring new savings to the Treasury and the States. Because of these savings, the provisions in chapter 4 are an important part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Section 1107

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is an historic day. For the first time in 26 years, the American public will witness the adoption of the first real balanced budget. And we are going to pass this legislation despite the fact that the President of the United States has done nothing, I repeat, nothing, to make this task bipartisan. In fact, he has fanned the flames of fear- mongering simply to gain what he sees as a political advantage. Just look at his actions and the actions of his Secretary of Treasury in the past 10 days. He indicated that he would not sign a continuing resolution to reopen the Government because it would have committed him to balancing the budget in 7 years. And Treasury Secretary Rubin last week spooked the global markets by scaring investors into believing that the United States was facing an imminent default on our debt. There was no default; in fact there was no chance of a default, and Secretary Rubin knew that. Yet he deceived the American people into believing default would happen if the Republicans did not accept the President's demand that we not go forward with our 7-year balanced budget plan. His actions are reprehensible. Emboldened by polls that show many Americans blame Republicans for the Government shutdown, the President would rather maximize political advantage than exercise fiscal leadership. The President mimics leadership by standing up to the Republicans and refusing to seek a balanced budget in 7 years. That is not leadership. In fact, it is quite the opposite. When viewed through the lens of history, the President's behavior will be viewed for what it is. A waffle. A retreat. A repudiation of the promise of a balanced budget. What we are offering the President is the first serious effort in two and a half decades to put our fiscal house in order. And the President is slamming the door in our face. It is that simple. We are on a pathway to reduce the growth in Federal spending by a trillion dollars--to accomplish what the American people asked us to do. We are doing it without smoke and mirrors. We are doing it with the CBO budget estimates that the President himself asked that we use. We are delivering on a promise made to voters. The President promised a balanced budget in 5 years; but that's just one of so many campaign promises the President abandoned when he walked in the White House. But in keeping our promise, we are attacking the cancer of cynicism that undermines the confidence that Americans have in their leadership, and their Government. We are so close to achieving our objectives. Sadly, the President would rather be an instrument of the status quo than a positive force for change. The President would rather flame the fears of older Americans with frightening tales of impending woe than lead us along the path to fiscal sanity for the sake of our children. In what I believe is a political miscalculation, the President is deluded by a short term poll that will mean nothing when we are held accountable to the people for the end result of our efforts today. Most Americans do not believe we will keep our promise and balance the budget in 7 years. The President apparently wants to prove them right and thus deepen the cynicism that embitters Americans toward their government. And that, Mr. President, endangers far more than our fiscal stability. Mr. President, ever since the Republicans unveiled their balanced budget legislative plan during this Spring, the President has been out campaigning against the plan, instilling fear into our most fragile citizens--the elderly. Over and over and over again, there's one message the President has been drumming into the American people. And that message is that we are cutting Medicare. Mr. President, nothing could be further from the truth. And I think it's time for the President to stop his demagogic language about Medicare. Over the next 7 years Medicare spending will increase from $178 billion to $294 billion--a 65-percent increase, Mr. President. That is NOT a cut. [[Page S 17303]] Put another way, spending for each beneficiary will increase from $4,800 this year to $7,100 in 2002. Mr. President, let members end the scare tactics on Medicare. Let us face the fact that if we do nothing, if we maintain this endless borrowing spree, we will bankrupt our children and grandchildren and ensure that Medicare will go broke in 7 years. I call upon my colleagues and the President. Let us surprise America today. Let us prove that we can balance the budget in 7 years, save Medicare, and begin to lift this crippling debt from the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. As I indicated in my remarks earlier, the administration does support the bill. The Secretary of Energy supports the bill, and I know of no opposition within the administration to the bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Louisiana is almost correct. Since this is government business, it is close enough for government work, but it was 17 to 4.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I can respond just very briefly, the energy committee, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, voted to support that. It would take me a moment to look at the exact vote, but it was overwhelming in support. I want to acknowledge that my good friend from Louisiana, who is the ranking member of that committee, perhaps he has the exact figure available to him.