Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me again ask my friend from New York, you say we do not know who those people are. I find that very curious, and basically unacceptable. We are committing $20 billion from the economic stabilization fund as the Secretary of the Treasury see fit without any congressional oversight. The proposal of the Senator from New York that is before us would curtail any further utilization of that fund, and $5 billion has already been committed, I gather.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. The reference was made by the Senator from New York relative to bailing out speculators. We have never really had any acknowledgement from the administration as to just who held the debt, the Mexican bonds. We were told sometime ago, in an earlier discussion that the Senator from New York and I participated in, that these were bearer instruments. In other words, they were not issued in the name of a John Doe or a Sally Smith, but if you bought one you were a holder and, as a consequence of becoming a holder, there was no identification as to whom the holder is. This loan and guarantee program started out at $6 billion. It escalated to $40 billion and when the administration end-runned the Congress, the total package exceeded $50 billion--at least $20 billion of which comes from the United States. But my question specifically to the Senator from New York is, Why can we not find out who the holders of this debt are, the so-called speculators out there? And what is the difference between investing in a Mexican bearer bond and investing in the stock market? If you buy IBM shares today at 82 and then next week it goes down to 62, do we expect the Federal Government to bail out that sophisticated investor who, with his or her eyes wide open, went in and bought that IBM stock? What is the difference between that and a Mexican bearer bond?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, will my friend from New York yield for a question?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder where that investment would be going. Would it be going into marks or yen outside the country, possibly?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska unfortunately has to leave the discussion. I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma would carry on. I want to pledge to my friend from New York that I will work with him to stop this hemorrhage of the American taxpayer. In fact, we were able to hold a meeting, the Senator from New York as chairman of the Banking Committee, myself as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I think is an appropriate utilization of our oversight responsibilities. I think it behooves us collectively to work with the Finance Committee to develop a methodology so that we can tell the American taxpayers specifically who the recipients of this $52 billion bailout are because clearly it is not the Mexican people. It is the holders of high-risk debt that is generating a very handsome rate of return at the expense and the exposure of the American taxpayer. I can tell the Senator from New York and the Senator from Oklahoma that, if this $52 billion flows out, the people of Mexico are expected to pick up and pay that back. They are not going to be able to do it. And we know that. We should not kid ourselves. As a consequence, the American taxpayer will end up as the fall guy, and the sophisticated investment community in this country and abroad will be the beneficiaries. I think the American public is entitled to know who those beneficiaries are. I intend to work with my colleagues toward that end in appropriate identification of just where this handsome return is being funneled. I thank my friend from New York. I am pleased to join with him in cosponsoring this amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Production is in decline.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Simply to submit a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 427 and ask that it be taken up at the appropriate time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send, along with Senator D'Amato, a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 427, and ask that it be taken up at the appropriate time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise against the amendment to strike the Gorton salvage amendment. This amendment is an essential response to an emergency forest health situation on our Federal forests as evidenced by last year's fire season. Our committee has held oversight in this area, and has recognized the severity of the problem. I recommend we support the Gorton amendment as an appropriate emergency response to the problem. As I listen to critics of this amendment, I have come to conclude that they must be discussing some other provision than the one offered by Senator Gorton. First, they say that the Gorton amendment mandates increased salvage timber sales. The Gorton amendment does not mandate timber sales, it provides the administration with additional flexibility to sell salvage sales to the extent feasible. I trust the administration to properly utilize the flexibility. Opponents of the Gorton amendment apparently don't trust this administration. I can't tell whether they don't want to rehabilitate burned forests, or whether they need individual sale sign-off from Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas, the Secretary of Agriculture, and--maybe even--Vice President Gore to trust the administration. Second, they say that the Gorton amendment suspends all environmental laws. The Gorton amendment expedites existing administrative procedures under the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other measures. If the agencies successfully follow the expedited procedures, their performance is deemed adequate to comply with existing environmental and natural resources statues. These expedited procedures are essential if we are to appropriately respond to the forest health emergency we face. Third, they say that the Gorton amendment eliminates judicial review. Well it does not. The amendment provides an expedited form of judicial review that has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in previous litigation. Fourth, they say that the Forest Service cannot meet the salvage targets. Well the amendment does not have any targets. I wish it did. Today, the Forest Service is working on its capability statement on the House version of this amendment. There are strong indications that, with the expedited procedures of the House bill--matched in pertinent part in the Gorton amendment--the Agency can meet the House targets and still comply with the substantive requirements of existing environmental and natural resources law. Fifth, they say that this amendment will cost the Treasury. This is false. The Gorton amendment has received a positive score from the Congressional Budget Office. Sixth, they say that the amendment may disrupt and actually reduce timber sales. If that were true, I would expect them to strongly support the Gorton amendment. But it is not. The Gorton amendment contains protective language to assure that potential environmental litigants cannot disrupt other agency functions due to this amendment. I have been generally perplexed by the misconceptions that accompany the attacks on this amendment. But today I know why this may be the case. Yesterday Senator Gorton and Congressman Charles Taylor, along with Senator Craig--the author of S. 391, a measure directed at another aspect of this problem--offered to meet with a group of activists opposed to both the Gorton amendment and S. 391. Together, they cleared time on their calendars at 9 a.m. But they found the activists were more interested in preparing for their 9:30 a.m. press conference than meeting with the authors of the three provisions that they proceeded to lambast. That sort of interest group behavior cannot be tolerated if we are to continue to have informed debates in this body. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gorton amendment, against the amendment to strike, and against any other modifying amendments.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, again I must rise in opposition to the Reid amendment for the same reason prevailing on the previous Reid amendment. While the Senator from Nevada makes a very appealing case for the utilization of these funds, I must remind him again that there is a principle here, an underlying principle of trust, and that trust must be honored. Mr. President, what we are talking about here again is a solemn compact, with the customers of these nuclear utilities who have paid amounts into the waste fund, that the Federal Government will use these moneys only for the purpose of taking care of nuclear waste. We cannot meet other obligations, regardless of how worthy they might be. Diverting those funds is simply not fair to the customers of those utilities nor is diverting those funds fair to Americans everywhere. This nuclear waste must be disposed of. It will not just go away. Without these moneys, the nuclear waste simply will not be cleaned up. It is an obligation we all have. Mr. President, what the Senator from Nevada is proposing is making everyone else in America pay for the cleanup of nuclear waste that is basically already paid for one time by the ratepayers. Further, there have been no hearings on this matter. We really do not understand the impact of the Senator's amendment other than it would void a portion of the funds that have been paid in by well-meaning ratepayers, based on the trust and confidence they have in the Federal Government to keep its word. I am very concerned the Senator's amendment will do grave harm to the cleanup and the disposal of nuclear waste. I yield back my time remaining to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President I yield myself 30 seconds. I would like to remind my colleagues that the U.S. Government has made a solemn compact with customers of these utilities. As the Senator from New Mexico said, and he was absolutely correct, it is not the taxpayers, it is the recipients who participated through their utility bills, and they pay into this nuclear waste fund. The Federal Government must use these moneys only for the purpose of taking care of nuclear waste. That is a trust that was entered into. It is up to the Government and this body to honor that trust.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to make that accommodation. The Senator from New Mexico has 10 minutes, and there are 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think the Senator from New Mexico wants to speak and the Senator from Idaho wants to speak. May I ask how much time he would like? There are 12 minutes remaining.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have been advised that there is a Senator from this side who wants to be heard on this issue, the senior Senator from New Mexico. So I must advise my friend from West Virginia that I must reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am very sensitive to the concerns of the Senator from Nevada about the issue of nuclear waste policy. However, I must rise in opposition to the amendment because I honestly feel a trust is about to be broken if indeed funds that have been collected by America's nuclear utility system for the benefit of a specific purpose of establishing a repository for this Nation's nuclear waste are used for a purpose other than intended. It is my understanding that the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada does just that, that $14,700,000 of funds that were collected by the utilities from the ratepayers are to be used for a purpose other than that which is intended. In 1982 when Congress adopted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it required the Department of Energy to build a repository that could accept spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors at a repository by the year 1998. Unfortunately, that commitment has not been made nor directed by Congress. However, the DOE entered into contracts with the Nation's nuclear utilities under which the Department collected a fee of one-tenth of 1 percent per kilowatt- hour on electricity generated by nuclear energy in return for a commitment to accept waste beginning in 1998. If the Reid amendment passes today, that commitment will be broken. The fee is collected by utilities from their ratepayers in their monthly bills and it is placed in a special Nuclear Waste Fund in the Treasury. The fund receives over $\1/2\ billion per year from collections and $300 million per year in interest on the unobligated balance. At this time the fund has a balance of $4.9 billion. The Department of Energy has acknowledged that they will be unable to meet their obligations to begin accepting waste in 1998. For this reason, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is considering legislation to restructure the nuclear waste program so that the Government will not have to default on its contractual obligations to the American people. I cannot now tell you exactly what that form of nuclear waste disposal program will take and what it will consist of. However, I know for a fact that it will be very expensive. The Nuclear Waste Fund was collected from the Nation's ratepayers for the specific purpose of disposing of spent nuclear fuel. It cannot be allowed to be used for any other purpose, and that specifically is what the Reid amendment will do. So I must stand in opposition to the amendment. I see no further Senator wishing to speak. I would accommodate the senior Senator from West Virginia, and yield the remaining time that we have on this side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the senior Senator from West Virginia will allow me to speak against the amendment. As chairman of the Energy Committee I take the opportunity to do so, and I would be happy to yield the remaining time to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond, I, too, would enjoy hearing a little reference to Senator Heflin very much. Perhaps, if I may inquire again. There is no time on the other side on this amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. We would like to reserve some time to speak against the Reid amendment. I would like to accommodate the senior Senator from West Virginia as well. I wonder how much time he would intend to take. I have no objection to splitting the time. But if it going to come off our side, then I would ask for some consideration.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time is running and being charged against our side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, may I make inquiry?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Washington. Mr. President, I rise to again commend the Gorton salvage amendment. I share, as Senator from the State of Alaska, a dilemma facing all of us; that is, a shortage of timber. We have seen our industry shrink by about three-quarters by a combination of the inability of the Forest Service to meet its proposed contractual agreements. As a consequence, the industry has shrunk. As I see the issue before us, we have an opportunity, because of an unfortunate act of God, to bring into the pipeline a supply of timber that otherwise would not be available. Clearly, without the help of the Gorton salvage amendment the Forest Service is absolutely incapable--make no mistake about it--incapable of addressing this in an expeditious manner. So those who suggest that we simply proceed under the status quo will find that the timber will be left where the bugs or the fire last left it when we are here next year and the year after. So, do not be misled by those who are of the extreme environmental bent to see this as an opportunity simply to stop the timber process. It is unfortunate that we could not make the decision on what to do with this timber based on sound forest practice management--what is best for the renewability of the resource. The Gorton salvage amendment is an essential response to an emergency forest health situation in our Federal forests as evidenced by last year's fire season. Our committee, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has held oversight in the area, has recognized the severity of the problem, and I strongly recommend we do a positive step of forest management practice and support the Gorton amendment as an appropriate emergency response to the problem. I have listened to the critics of the amendment both on the floor and off the floor. I have come to conclude that they must be discussing some other provision than the one offered by the senior Senator from Washington. First, they say the Gorton amendment mandates increased salvage timber sales. The Gorton amendment does not mandate timber sales. It provides the administration with the flexibility to salvage sales to the extent feasible. I trust the administration to properly utilize that flexibility. Opponents of the Gorton amendment apparently do not trust this administration. I cannot tell whether they do not want to rehabilitate burned forests or whether they need individual sign off from the Forest Service Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, the Secretary of Agriculture, or maybe even Vice President Gore to trust the administration. Second, they say that the Gorton amendment suspends all environmental laws. The Gorton amendment expedites existing administrative procedures under the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other measures. If the agency successfully follows the expedited procedure, their performance is deemed adequate to comply with existing environmental and natural resource statutes. These expedited procedures are essential as we must appropriately respond to the forest health emergency, and it is an emergency that we face. If you have an emergency, Mr. President, you respond to it and you expedite a process. That is what the Gorton amendment is all about. Third, they say the Gorton amendment eliminates judicial review. It simply does not. The amendment provides an expedited form of judicial review that has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in previous litigation. Fourth, they would say the Forest Service cannot meet the salvage targets. The amendment does not have any targets. I wish it did. Today, the Forest Service is working on its capability statement on the House version of this amendment. There are strong indications that with the expedited procedure the House bill will match in pertinent part the Gorton amendment. The agencies can meet the House targets and still comply with substantive requirements of existing environmental and natural resources. Fifth, they say the amendment will cost the Treasury. This is simply false. The Gorton amendment has received a positive score from CBO. Sixth, they say the amendment may disrupt and actually reduce timber sales. Well, if that were true, I would expect them to strongly support the Gorton amendment. But it is not true. The Gorton amendment contains protective language to assure potential environmental litigants cannot disrupt other agencies' functions due to this amendment. Finally, Mr. President, I have been genuinely perplexed by the misconceptions that accompany the attacks on this amendment, but today perhaps I know why this is the case. Yesterday, Senator Gorton and Congressman Charles Taylor along with Senator Craig, the author of S. 391, which is a measure directed at another aspect of this problem, offered to meet, as I understand, with groups of activists opposed to both the Gorton amendment and S. 391 together. It is my understanding they cleared time on their calendars at 9 a.m., but they found that the activists were evidently more interested in preparing for their 9:30 a.m. press conference than meeting with the authors of the three provisions which they proceeded to lambaste. That sort of interest group behavior I do not think can be tolerated if we are to continue to have informed debates in this body. So, Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gorton amendment, and against other modifying amendments. I encourage my colleagues to proceed with what this is, an emergency. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska would like to speak in support of the Gorton salvage amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, who controls the time?