Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 7 or 8 minutes at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a joint oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 14 at 10:15 a.m. in Room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Loss of National Security Information at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. For further information, please call Howard Useem at 202-224-6567 or Trici Heninger at (202) 224-7875.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for more than 30 years, the State of Alaska was subjected to an economic inequity in the administration of the national Medicaid program. With a poverty level 25 percent above the national average, and over one-sixth of the state's population Medicaid-eligible, Alaska delivers health care to many needy children, pregnant women, disabled and elderly poor Americans. These people deserve quality medical care, and Alaska delivers. But three years ago, Congress recognized that the federal government was not paying its fair share of Alaska's Medicaid program. The one- size-fits-all formula that is used to calculate the federal Medicaid match is based upon the per capita income of individual states as it relates to the national per capita income. Simply put, states with higher per capita income pay a higher percentage of Medicaid costs. This formula works well for states that are near national norms for most economic indicators. But it certainly doesn't work in the State of Alaska, where most economic measurements are atypical compared with national averages. The reason is fairly simple. It just costs more to live and do business in Alaska. Per capita income isn't a fair indicator unless it takes into account the cost of delivering care in that area. Somehow, however, the Medicaid formula forgot this. In 1997, when Congress recognized this issue, it adopted legislation that reflected the state's higher costs and increased the federal Medicaid match. Instead of receiving a 50-50 match rate, as the formula would dictate, a 59.8-40.2 percent match rate was established. Unfortunately, this legislation was a short term fix. It only allowed the formula change to remain in effect for three years. As a result, unless we change the law, the formula will revert to the same inequitable standard that was used previously. And unless we extend the formula change, vital health care services to Alaska's neediest patients will be compromised. For this reason, I am introducing legislation that will extend the federal government's commitment to the health and well-being of Alaska's Medicaid beneficiaries. The ``Alaska Medicaid Equity Act of 2000,'' which is co-sponsored by Senator Stevens, simply continues the spirit and intent of Congress by adjusting federal medical assistance percentage calculations to account for Alaska's unusually high delivery costs. Three years after we first passed this legislation, the reasons and justifications for the adjustment still exist. The formula is still fundamentally unfair to Alaska. Let me explain why. Alaska's per capita income is $28,523, the 17th highest in the country. In fact, it's right near the national average, which is $28,518. Although Alaska's per capita income suggests it is one of the richer states, it fails to take into account the high cost of living and the high cost of delivering health care. Some studies show that it costs 71 percent more to deliver health care in Alaska. But let's look at some real numbers. From coast to coast, the U.S. dollar buys more goods and services than it does in Alaska. In Portland, Oregon, it costs $66.00 to feed a family of four for one week. In Anchorage it costs $84.15. In Kodiak, that number jumps to $105.88. And out in Dillingham, that number rises to $144.57! We're comparing apples and oranges when we compare Alaska's per capita income to another state's average. And how about electricity? In Portland, 1000 kilowatt hours costs $60.88. Anchorage residents are paying $92.83. Out in Bethel, Alaska, residents are paying $202.68. When focusing solely on the delivery of health care services, the differences stand out even more. In Florida, a hospital room for one day costs, on average, $361. This is in line with lower 48 costs, which run between $350 and $450. In Alaska, that same room costs $748--more than twice as much! A physician office visit is $53 in Florida. That visit costs $80 in Alaska--an increase of 66%! You can look at virtually any good or service and see a comparable difference. A dollar simply doesn't buy the same thing in Alaska that it does in the lower 48. The numbers prove this. The federal government has admitted this. Federal government employees receive a salary adjustment in Alaska--a 25% cost of living adjustment. Military personnel receive a similar increase. Medicare pays higher as well. Even the Federal Poverty Level is adjusted to reflect the unique costs in Alaska. So why doesn't Medicaid? Our bill merely continues the commitment Congress made to Alaska's Medicaid population three years ago. It's fair, and it makes sense. I ask my colleagues to assist me in rectifying this clear inequity for the state of Alaska; I ask my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor in support of the amendment, and thank all the sponsors for their work in this area. The purpose of this amendment, put simply, is to provide compensation to workers who have gotten sick as a result of their exposure to hazardous materials in the course of their efforts to build and test nuclear weapons. We must do right by these workers. They were instrumental in winning the cold war. Their efforts deterred hostile attack and safeguarded our security. I want to highlight a small group of those workers who toiled on a remote island in Alaska to test the largest underground nuclear weapons test our nation ever conducted. Amchitka is an island in the Aleutian arc 1340 miles southwest of Anchorage. As I mentioned, it is the site of the largest underground nuclear test in U.S. history--the so-called ``Cannikin'' test of 1971. This 5 megaton test was preceded by two prior tests: ``Long Shot,'' an 80 kiloton test in 1965; and ``Milrow,'' a 1 megaton test in 1969. According to an independent investigator, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, the ionizing radiation exposure above normal background levels experienced by Amchitka workers ranged from 669 up to 17,240 milliren/year. Workers exposures at Amchitka were primarily due to: Groundwater transport of tritium from the Longshot test; Radionuclides stored on site or used in the shaft, including scandium 46, cesium 137, and other radioactive diagnostic capsuled sources; Radioactive thermoelectric generator (RTG) use; Material released from the Cannikin re-entry operations in 1972; Unfortunately, it appears that The Atomic Energy Commission--the predecessor of today's Department of Energy--did not provide for the proper protection of these workers. According to Dr. Bertell: Although the workers were apparently told that their work was not `hazardous,' they were actually classified as nuclear workers and were exposed to levels of ionizing radiation from non-natural and/or non-normal sources, above the level which at that time was permitted yearly for the general public, namely 500 mrem/year . . . Doses received by the men during special assignments and during the post-Cannikin cleanup, exceeded the permissible quarterly dose of 1250 mrem and the maximum permissible yearly dose of 5000 mrem. I would note that the allowable exposure standards for both workers and the general public are much lower today. The actual amount of radiation the Amchitka workers were exposed to is difficult to quantify, Mr. President. These workers generally did not have the protection of radiation safety training or instruction in the proper usage of Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs). To make matters even worse, exposure records were not kept in many cases by the AEC. Some of the records that were kept by AEC were later lost. While this was not unusual in the very early years of the nuclear age, radiation protection formalities were well established by the late 1960s and 1970s at the time of the Amchitka tests. Yet the proper procedures were not followed and the proper records were not kept. So although these were some likely exposures, the records that could help these workers make a claim under existing authority do not exist through no fault of their own. That is the reason that Amchitka workers are included in the ``Special Exposure Cohort'' with the workers at the Gaseous Diffusion Plants in Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. If a member of the special exposure cohort gets a specified disease listed in the amendment that is known to be associated with ionizing radiation, her or she is entitled to appropriate compensation. I appreciate the work of Senator Thompson and others, and the consideration given us by the floor managers. Mr. President, I yield the floor. amendment no. 3251 (Purpose: To conform standards of judicial review of actions relating to selection boards; and to make a technical correction) Beginning on page 144, strike line 22 and all that follows through page 145, line 4, and insert the following: may be, only if the court finds that recommendation or action was contrary to law or involved a material error of fact or a material administrative error. On page 145, strike lines 8 through 12, and insert the following: only if the court finds the decision to be arbitrary or capricious, not based on substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to law. On page 148, line 24, strike ``off Defense'' and insert ``concerned''.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for more than 30 years, the State of Alaska was subjected to an economic inequity in the administration of the national Medicaid program. With a poverty level 25 percent above the national average, and over one-sixth of the state's population Medicaid-eligible, Alaska delivers health care to many needy children, pregnant women, disabled and elderly poor Americans. These people deserve quality medical care, and Alaska delivers. But three years ago, Congress recognized that the federal government was not paying its fair share of Alaska's Medicaid program. The one- size-fits-all formula that is used to calculate the federal Medicaid match is based upon the per capita income of individual states as it relates to the national per capita income. Simply put, states with higher per capita income pay a higher percentage of Medicaid costs. This formula works well for states that are near national norms for most economic indicators. But it certainly doesn't work in the State of Alaska, where most economic measurements are atypical compared with national averages. The reason is fairly simple. It just costs more to live and do business in Alaska. Per capita income isn't a fair indicator unless it takes into account the cost of delivering care in that area. Somehow, however, the Medicaid formula forgot this. In 1997, when Congress recognized this issue, it adopted legislation that reflected the state's higher costs and increased the federal Medicaid match. Instead of receiving a 50-50 match rate, as the formula would dictate, a 59.8-40.2 percent match rate was established. Unfortunately, this legislation was a short term fix. It only allowed the formula change to remain in effect for three years. As a result, unless we change the law, the formula will revert to the same inequitable standard that was used previously. And unless we extend the formula change, vital health care services to Alaska's neediest patients will be compromised. For this reason, I am introducing legislation that will extend the federal government's commitment to the health and well-being of Alaska's Medicaid beneficiaries. The ``Alaska Medicaid Equity Act of 2000,'' which is co-sponsored by Senator Stevens, simply continues the spirit and intent of Congress by adjusting federal medical assistance percentage calculations to account for Alaska's unusually high delivery costs. Three years after we first passed this legislation, the reasons and justifications for the adjustment still exist. The formula is still fundamentally unfair to Alaska. Let me explain why. Alaska's per capita income is $28,523, the 17th highest in the country. In fact, it's right near the national average, which is $28,518. Although Alaska's per capita income suggests it is one of the richer states, it fails to take into account the high cost of living and the high cost of delivering health care. Some studies show that it costs 71 percent more to deliver health care in Alaska. But let's look at some real numbers. From coast to coast, the U.S. dollar buys more goods and services than it does in Alaska. In Portland, Oregon, it costs $66.00 to feed a family of four for one week. In Anchorage it costs $84.15. In Kodiak, that number jumps to $105.88. And out in Dillingham, that number rises to $144.57! We're comparing apples and oranges when we compare Alaska's per capita income to another state's average. And how about electricity? In Portland, 1000 kilowatt hours costs $60.88. Anchorage residents are paying $92.83. Out in Bethel, Alaska, residents are paying $202.68. When focusing solely on the delivery of health care services, the differences stand out even more. In Florida, a hospital room for one day costs, on average, $361. This is in line with lower 48 costs, which run between $350 and $450. In Alaska, that same room costs $748--more than twice as much! A physician office visit is $53 in Florida. That visit costs $80 in Alaska--an increase of 66%! You can look at virtually any good or service and see a comparable difference. A dollar simply doesn't buy the same thing in Alaska that it does in the lower 48. The numbers prove this. The federal government has admitted this. Federal government employees receive a salary adjustment in Alaska--a 25% cost of living adjustment. Military personnel receive a similar increase. Medicare pays higher as well. Even the Federal Poverty Level is adjusted to reflect the unique costs in Alaska. So why doesn't Medicaid? Our bill merely continues the commitment Congress made to Alaska's Medicaid population three years ago. It's fair, and it makes sense. I ask my colleagues to assist me in rectifying this clear inequity for the state of Alaska; I ask my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an Alaskan institution as it nears its 100th birthday. It is a major tourist attraction in Alaska, the eighth most popular in the state in 1998, boosting ridership in 1999 to about 274,000 passengers. It is an engineering marvel, having been named an International Historic Civil Engineering Landmark in 1994, such as the Panama Canal, Eiffel Tower, and the Statue of Liberty. It is an historic institution, its history tied directly to that of the Territory and State of Alaska. It got its start because of the famed Klondike Gold Rush of 1898--the last great Gold Rush in North American history. But it is more. The White Pass & Yukon narrow-gauge Railroad is a lasting monument to the power of a dream, and to the ability of this country to mobilize technology. And it is proof positive that if you never give up, you can accomplish any worthwhile task, no matter how difficult the challenge. That lesson is as important today, as it was in 1900, at the line's completion. It was early in 1898 when two men came north intent upon solving a transportation dilemma--intent upon moving men and supplies across the daunting Coast Mountains of Southeast Alaska, so they could reach the gold fields of the Yukon to forge national wealth for both Canada and America from the virgin wilderness. Sir Thomas Tancrede, a representative of a group of British financiers and Michael J. Heney, a Canadian railway contractor, by chance met one night at a hotel bar in Skagway, Alaska. Tancrede, after detailed surveys, had concluded that it was impossible to build a railroad through the rugged St. Elias Mountains that separate the interior of the Yukon from Alaska at the northern end of the Alaska Panhandle. But Heney had just the opposite view. After an all-night ``discussion,'' one of the world's great railroad projects was no longer a dream, but an accepted challenge. On May 28, 1898, construction began on the White Pass & Yukon Route. Utilizing tons of black powder and thousands of workers the project began. Two months later the railroad's first engine pulled an excursion train from Skagway north over the first four miles of completed track, making the WP&YR, the northernmost railroad in the Western Hemisphere-- the first built above 60 degrees north latitude. From there on, the going got tough. The railroad, truly an international undertaking, climbed from sea level at the docks in Skagway through sheer mountains to 2,865 feet at the summit of the White Pass. It faces grades as steep as 3.9 percent. Heney's workers hung suspended by ropes from the vertical granite cliffs, chipping away with picks and planting black powder to blast a right-of-way through the mountains. Heavy snow and temperatures as low as -60 deg.F hampered the work. And the mere whisper of a new gold find sent workers scurrying off in droves. With all odds against it, the track reached the summit of White Pass on Feb. 20, 1899 and by July 6, construction reached the headwaters of the great Yukon River at Lake Bennett. While southern gangs blasted their way through the pass, a northern crew worked toward Whitehorse, later the capital of the Yukon Territory. On July 29, 1900, the 110- miles of rails met at Carcross, where a ceremonial spike was driven by Samuel H. Graves, the company's first president. It is that anniversary--the Golden Spike Centennial Celebration--that will take place in Carcross, Yukon Territory, on Saturday, July 29 that is a reason for this statement. Another reason, however, is simply to honor the White Pass, one of the most historic and quaint railroads in the world. Through the years when Alaska was a territory and later a state, the railroad enjoyed a rich and colorful history. It hauled passengers and freight to the Yukon; was a chief supplier for the U.S. Army's Alaska Highway construction project during World War II; and later was a basic freight railroad, hauling metal from the mines of the Yukon to tidewater in Alaska. The company after WWII began modernizing itself, retiring the last of its stream engines in 1964, switching to diesel locomotives. It became a fully-integrated transportation system, carrying freight (containers and highway tractor-trailer units) and passengers from Alaska to Canada's Interior. In 1982, however, world metal prices plummeted and the major mines in the Yukon shut down--metals being the most dependable freight during its first 82 years of service--causing the railroad's operations to be suspended. It was six long years later that the railroad reopened to provide tourist excursions for the 20.4 mile trip from tidewater to the summit of the White Pass and back to Skagway. It also picks up hikers who trek the famed Chilkoot Trail that ends at Lake Bennett and brings them to the Klondike Highway for road transport home. The railroad along the way paid homage to its heritage by saving old steam engine No. 73, a 1947, 2-8-2 Mikado class steam locomotive, and later restoring her for ceremonial service, so that passengers can venture from the docks in historic downtown Skagway--center of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park--toward the old Gold Rush cemetery, just 1.5 miles away. In those few miles, tourists can feel the rumble, hear the noise and experience the romance of historic American train travel. The White Pass embodies Alaska's ``boom-and-bust'' history, being born as a result of the Klondike Gold Rush. It is the direct result of the spirit and economic boom started in August 1896 when George Washington Carmack and his two Indian companions, Skookum Jim and Tagish Charlie, found gold in a tributary of the Klondike, later named Bonzana Creek outside of Dawson. The railroad experienced the territory's malaise in the early 20th Century, until World War II reinvigorated it. It survived the downturn in North American mining industry and is now benefiting from the growth of the nation's tourism industry and America's renewed interest in its history. All of America is better off for the railroad's presence. It today is a slice of living history that helps fuel the imagination of Americans and a love for our nation's past. It is a national treasure that we all need to protect and preserve. Happy Golden Anniversary to all the employees of the railroad and may you have a second great century of exciting and historic travel.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, June 15, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the goals and specific legislative provisions of S. 2557, the National Energy Security Act of 2000. The bill would protect the energy security of the United States and decrease America's dependency on foreign oil sources to 50 percent by the year 2010 by enhancing the use of renewable energy resources, conserving energy resources, improving energy efficiencies, and increasing domestic energy supplies, mitigating the effect of increases in energy prices on the American consumer, including the poor and elderly, and for other purposes. Presentation of oral testimony is by Committee invitation only. However, those who wish to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Brian Malnak at (202) 224-4971.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my good friend, Senator Bingaman that will reauthorize the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is America's national institution for the documentation, study, and interpretation of the history of the Holocaust and serves as this country's memorial to the millions of people murdered during the Holocaust. The Museum's primary mission is to advance and disseminate knowledge about the unprecedented tragedy; to preserve the memory of those who suffered; and to encourage its visitors to reflect upon the moral questions raised by the events of the Holocaust as well as their own responsibilities as citizens of a democracy. The work of the Museum is not limited to the building which overlooks the tidal basin here in Washington, D.C. I and my constituents in Alaska have benefitted from the work of the Museum. Through a system of very well designed traveling exhibits the Museum has been able to bring the story of the Holocaust, and its related history to millions of Americans nationwide. I know my constituents in Anchorage and Fairbanks will never forget their opportunity to view the traveling programs. The legislation makes some changes in the management authorities for the Museum and streamlines the procedures to appoint the Museum's Director. The legislation also provides the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with the same permanent authorization as we have previously provided for the Smithsonian Institution. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my good friend, Senator Bingaman that will reauthorize the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is America's national institution for the documentation, study, and interpretation of the history of the Holocaust and serves as this country's memorial to the millions of people murdered during the Holocaust. The Museum's primary mission is to advance and disseminate knowledge about the unprecedented tragedy; to preserve the memory of those who suffered; and to encourage its visitors to reflect upon the moral questions raised by the events of the Holocaust as well as their own responsibilities as citizens of a democracy. The work of the Museum is not limited to the building which overlooks the tidal basin here in Washington, D.C. I and my constituents in Alaska have benefitted from the work of the Museum. Through a system of very well designed traveling exhibits the Museum has been able to bring the story of the Holocaust, and its related history to millions of Americans nationwide. I know my constituents in Anchorage and Fairbanks will never forget their opportunity to view the traveling programs. The legislation makes some changes in the management authorities for the Museum and streamlines the procedures to appoint the Museum's Director. The legislation also provides the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with the same permanent authorization as we have previously provided for the Smithsonian Institution. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the outlook for America's natural gas demand. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 25, 2000, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Presentation of oral testimony is by Committee invitation only. However, those who wish to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information regarding the hearing, please contact Dan Kish at (202) 224-8276.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am going to take advantage of this time to speak on behalf of the National Energy Security Act of 2000. For the benefit of the Chair, this is the result of a 10-member task force appointed by the Majority Leader, which he asked that I chair. The Task Force included Senators Nickles, Craig, Hutchison, Collins, Domenici, Snowe, Roth, Santorum, and Smith of New Hampshire. The bill before us is S. 2557. The purpose of the legislation is to address a harsh reality that it is currently hard to identify just what the administration's policy is toward energy in this country at this time, other than to increase imports of crude oil coming into the country. The Majority Leader charged us to examine the impacts of increased U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources and the resulting increased energy cost to American consumers. It is estimated that the increase in the price of crude oil, which has risen from roughly $10, $11, $12 a barrel a year ago, to as high as $34--and it is currently about $30--has resulted in an increase, if one could compare it to a tax increase, of about $100 billion to the American consumer. If you have taken a cab in Washington, DC, you have noticed there is a little sticker that says they are going to charge 50 cents extra because of the increased cost of gasoline. If you have taken an airplane lately, you have noticed a surcharge from $20 to $40 on your ticket. So the multiplier is out there, Mr. President, and it is a significant factor in adding to inflation. So at the leader's request, we have established a very simple goal for our energy security through this legislation. The goal of the bill is to decrease America's dependency on foreign oil to less than 50 percent by the year 2010. It is kind of interesting, but the current administration figures indicate that since President Clinton has come to office, we are currently consuming 14 percent more oil than we did approximately 7 years ago and producing 17 percent less. There is indeed a need for an energy policy. This is what the National Energy Security Act of 2000 proposes to establish. We anticipate achieving the goal of reducing our imports of oil through a number of considerations. One is enhancing the use of renewable energy resources--including hydro, wind, solar, and biomass. We spend a good deal for experimental funding for these renewable sources. But the reality is we have a long way to go before they are going to take a major share of our energy production. Second, we are proposing to conserve energy resources and improve energy efficiencies. Third, we propose to increase domestic energy supplies, including oil, gas, and coal. The bill also addresses the concerns of regional consumers, particularly in the Northeast. It allows the Department of Energy's Secretary Richardson to create a home heating oil reserve and strengthen the weatherization program. It establishes a State-led education program to encourage consumers to take action to minimize seasonal price increases and shortages of home heating fuel. It provides incentives for construction and rehabilitation of private home heating oil storage facilities. The purpose is very simple. Imported energy should supplement our domestic energy supplies--not supplant them. The administration has looked for a quick fix and has pointed fingers. We understand that the American energy supply problem cannot be solved overnight. It is going to take a long-term view. We have to take it one step at a time. But it is time to begin taking those steps and that is a process we further today. The administration continues to lull the American public into a sense of indifference about energy supplies and the energy situation and has really hidden behind a slight decrease in prices at the pump. However, I would suggest these reductions in price are not here to stay. I refer to an article that appears in the Wall Street Journal of May 16 entitled ``Tight U.S. Gas Markets Boost Oil Prices''--a price of $30, and a year ago it was $12 or $13. What about the inflation factor? A significant indicator is the increased cost of energy. What about the balance of payments? One-third of our $300 billion deficit balance of payments--$100 billion--is the cost of imported oil. As a consequence, we have had an opportunity to hear from consumers all over the country stung by the high prices of heating oil, particularly in the Northeast corridor. And it is fair to say that as we go into the summer, this particular area of the country, which is approximately 30-percent dependent on oil-powered generation, will experience substantial price increases as a consequence of increased energy demand, particularly for air-conditioning. It is estimated that electricity costs in the Northeast region may double what they were last year and in some cases triple. The idea is that the older oil-fired power generation facilities are the last to come online, and ordinarily there is a windfall profit associated with that. Whatever it takes to support financially the cost of the higher generating resource--namely, oil--the other energy sources, whether they be gas or coal, rise to that price level--a practice known as ``uniform pricing.'' The consumer is stuck as a consequence, and prices go up as a result of the windfall profit. Finally, as the economies of Asia, Europe, and the United States continue to grow in the context of a set energy market, there will be increasing demands for energy resources by the fourth quarter of this year, again leading to tightening of petroleum supplies and a corresponding increase in prices. Many of us in this body on both sides of the aisle have made statements that the administration really lacks an energy policy. If you go back and recognize that in 1973 and 1974 we were 34-percent dependent on imported oil, today we are 56-percent dependent. And last month we got up to 61-percent dependence. The realities are, if we look to increasing imports to offset our increased consumption as well as the rest of the world, we are going to be paying the piper because, as indicated in this article today, we can look to OPEC and we can look to Venezuela, but, nevertheless, they have indicated self-discipline, and the price range is expected to be somewhere between $22 and $28 a barrel, which suggests, if you will, that the discipline to maintain this price is there. I see another Member of our task force is on the floor and intends to speak on this. As I have outlined our proposal in general terms and identified our goals--I again point out the realization that we want to protect energy security, we want to protect consumers and low-income families, and we want to increase domestic energy supplies--it should be noted that the last written statement from the administration about its proposal on energy was a narrow one. It came out during the last week of April from the Office of the Secretary of Energy, entitled ``Energy Secretary Richardson Announced Six Short-Term Actions to Help Prevent Power Outages.'' I think it is appropriate to highlight just what this contains because clearly it does not address increased production. It specifically states in the six points: First, to work with agencies to identify opportunities to reduce liquid consumption and Federal water problems during times of peak demand. I assume that means we are going to shut off water and our irrigation projects. Second, it urges the Federal Regulatory Commission and State utilities to commission, solicit, and improve targets that will help reduce electric demand. So we are going to propose an increase in the price of electricity to ensure that people reduce their consumption. Third, explore opportunities for use of existing backup generators during power supply emergencies. I wonder if we are going to confiscate the private sector generators. Fourth, conduct an emergency exercise with State and local governments to help prepare for outages. It looks as if they are pretty much giving up the ship and are preparing for those outages as opposed to generating more energy. Fifth, work closely with the utility industry to gain up-to-date, relevant information about potential grid-related problems. They are going to keep us informed. Lastly, they are going to prepare public service announcements. So we will know what is coming. I hardly think that fits the bill as we address the need for precise energy policy and the realization that the administration lacks an energy policy of any kind. In conclusion, let's relate the position the administration has taken with regard to energy. There is no effort to spur domestic oil and gas production. There is no effort to open up the area of the Rocky Mountain overthrust belt to encourage exploration for gas. There is no effort by the administration to loosen the noose they have put around the neck of our domestic energy industries. They are refusing to resolve the nuclear waste issue. They have refused to recognize hydro as a renewable resource and are proposing in some cases to take dams down out west. If you identify the energy resources and recognize the position of the administration, it is quite clear that they do not have an energy policy. That is why I commend the leader and the other members of the task force for developing a plan that is a workable, achievable plan that will substantially address the emergency associated with our energy situation in this country. I again refer to this as the National Energy Security Act of 2000. I see the leader on the floor, and perhaps at this time he wishes to introduce the bill and make some remarks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on our side.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Idaho would like to be recognized to speak for 10 or 15 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on the special order?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Idaho. He has outlined very carefully the basic underlying theme, which is we are proposing an energy policy. That energy policy is enunciated in the National Energy Security Act of 2000, S. 2557, which was introduced by the leadership this morning and on whose behalf the Senator from Idaho has spoken. We have--I emphasize this--we have laid down an energy policy for this country. I suggest there is not one Member who can identify specifically what is the administration's energy policy. We know what it is not. Let's take nuclear power. We know they are opposed to it. They will not address the issue of nuclear waste. We know they are against domestic oil and gas production. We know they are against hydroelectric power expansion. We know they are against new natural gas pipelines. What are they for then? It is pretty hard to identify until one begins looking at the record of the Secretary in trying to generate relief from the oil shortage we are experiencing. I will speak about the oil shortage specifically because it is very real and is identified on this chart. This chart is designated by quarter, this is global demand and global supply for each quarter this year. The reality is, by the end of the fourth quarter, the demand will exceed the supply by about 2 million barrels a day. I could spend a lot of time on this chart and show where the oil comes from--OPEC, Iraq, OPEC supply, non-OPEC supply--but we have a basic economic factor where we have more demand than supply. When we have that kind of situation, the price goes up and the American taxpayers pay through the nose. Last year, oil was $11, $12, $13 a barrel. Earlier this year, we saw $34-a-barrel oil. Currently we are at about $29 to $30. Where are we looking to accommodate this increase demand with this administration? We are looking to Iraq-- of all nations of the world, Iraq. Think about it. This next chart shows our imports from Iraq. They were very small through 1997. In 1998, they began to jump up. The specifics are, in 1998 we imported 300,000 barrels a day from Iraq; currently, we are importing 700,000 barrels a day. How quickly we forget that in 1990 and 1991 we fought a war with Iraq. We lost 293 American lives. There were 467 wounded. There was a cost to the American taxpayers of approximately $7.4 billion. What have we done since then? We have enforced a no-fly zone. That is very similar to an aerial blockade. What has it cost the taxpayers of this country since the war? It has cost the taxpayers approximately $10 billion just to keep Saddam Hussein fenced in. The American press does not even print this anymore. We get the figures from the French press of what is going on over there. Enforcing the no-fly zone in Iraq has required more than 240,000 sorties since the end of the gulf war at an average cost of $7 million an hour. We have flown 21,000 missions since 1998. We have bombed them on more than 145 days since Desert Fox in December of 1998. Since December of 1998, Iraq reports 295 of their citizens have been killed and 860 wounded in airstrikes. Airstrikes on Iraq occur almost daily. Where are we looking for oil? Iraq. What kind of a foreign policy does this administration have? Saddam Hussein seems to be deliberately luring us, sadistically using his own people as bait, into killing innocent Iraqis for sympathy to lift the no-fly zone. At the same time, he is dramatically increasing his own military capacity. What is happening? He is smuggling out an awful lot of oil. What is he using the funds for? Every Member of this body should get a classified briefing from the Intelligence Committee and find out for themselves what he is doing. It is a very dangerous situation with which we are going to have to reckon at some point in time, and God help us. U.N. sanctions certainly have not done the job. What we are doing with Saddam Hussein is rewarding him. Iraq will export $8.5 billion in oil this year, and it is estimated the smuggling will generate approximately $400 million which goes to enrich Saddam Hussein and goes to his Republican Guard which keeps him alive. Think about it. We are looking to Iraq for our oil. What is Iraq looking towards? This is a bizarre pattern. If we think about it, it is fairly simple. It is so simple that I hope my colleagues will reflect on its significance. He uses the money we send him for new arms--new biological technology--we take his oil, and we fill our warplanes. And what do we do? We go bomb him. Then we buy some more of his oil, send him some money, and the process starts all over again. We are spending billions and billions of dollars to contain Iraq's expansion, and billions and billions of dollars to permit Iraqi expansion by increasing their refining capacity. As we do this we are risking the lives of American service men and women, our security, the security of our allies, and the American way of life, if you will, pursuing an energy policy which can only end in a tragedy. I think today my colleagues who have joined the leader in the introduction of the National Energy Security Act of 2000 have put forward an energy plan, an energy policy. It is up to the administration now to match it. Because so far the only thing the administration has done is to come out with six very weak short-term actions: to help prevent power outages which would terminate the generation to Federal water projects; it would encourage price increases; it would explore the opportunities for the inventory of generators held by the private sector; it would conduct emergency exercises; it would work with the utility industry to update information; and prepare public service announcements. What kind of an energy policy is that? I see my good friend, the junior Senator from Texas, seeking recognition. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a two-part hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This hearing will take place on Thursday, May 18, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the first part of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2439, a bill to authorize the construction of the Southeastern Alaska Intertie system. The purpose of the second part of the hearing is to consider the nomination of Mildred Dresselhaus, to be Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy. Presentation of oral testimony is by Committee invitation only. However, those who wish to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information regarding S. 2439, please contact Dan Kish. For further information regarding the Dresselhaus nomination, please contact David Dye.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 434, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. I believe passage of this legislation is important to cement what has become the broad, bi-partisan consensus of this body: trade is a key factor in raising living standards in developing countries, and is of primary importance in exporting to those countries key American values of human rights, democratization, peace and stability. Mr. President, in supporting this legislation I do not suggest that trade alone is a panacea for the many difficulties in developing countries. Simply opening the door to trade with African countries will not enable many of these countries to enter the international community of developed nations. Many countries in Africa simply lack the basic health, education and economic infrastructures to take advantage of the benefits this legislation provides. Trade and investment initiatives for Africa will not succeed without substantial investments in developing Africa's human resources. For those sub-Saharan African countries who labor under a crippling debt burden, some measure must be taken to assist them to break free from reliance on debt provided by donor countries. Debt relief should be the highest priority of donor countries, including the United States, seeking to promote African economic development. This legislation should therefore be hailed not as an end in itself, but as a good beginning to a longer-term policy which, under U.S. leadership, begins to draw Africa more closely into the global community. We need to begin now to ensure that U.S. policy will do more to promote regional economic cooperation and integration in Africa; U.S. Policymakers, including those in this body, should undertake broader and more regular consultation with Africa's governmental, non- governmental and private sector leadership, and we should ensure that the eligibility standards contained in this legislation carefully account for differing levels of development. To that end, we should be careful not to rely too closely on conditions such as those employed by the International Monetary Fund in applying eligibility standards under this legislation. Mr. President, the importance of this legislation is both its historic significance as the first major piece of trade legislation in twelve years and its precedential significance in marking the importance of trade benefits as a ``carrot'' and not a ``stick'' to bring international social and living standards in developing standards more close to international norms. Rather than holding this legislation hostage to concerns which can and must be addressed in the longer-term. I would urge my colleagues to take this first step on the road of a broader, more sensible policy toward the developing world, and pass this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the legislative hearing regarding S. 1756, the National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 1999; and S. 2336, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development for Department of Energy Missions Act, which had been previously scheduled for Tuesday, May 9, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. has been cancelled. For further information, please call Trici Heninger or Bryan Hannegan at (202) 224-7875. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation and recreation

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area in my State of Alaska. The Heritage Area, when enacted, will include the first leg of the Iditarod National Historic Trail and most of the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway. Through National Heritage designation these routes will be portrayed and interpreted as part of the whole picture of human history in the wider transportation corridor through the mountains, which includes early Native trade routes, connections by waterway, the railroad, and other trails and roadways. This proposal differs from the 16 existing National Heritage Areas. The fact that it would be one of a kind strengthens the case for designation. Unlike any of the existing National Heritage Areas, the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Historic Corridor will highlight the experience of the western frontier--of transportation and settlement in a difficult landscape--of the gold rush and resource development in a remote area. These are the themes of the proposal--themes that formed our perception of ourselves as a nation. The proposed Heritage Area wonderfully expresses these themes. Within the proposed Heritage Area there are a number of small historic communities that developed around transportation and the gold rush. They are dwarfed by the sweeping landscapes of the region, by the magnificence of the mountains, and the dominance and strength of nature. Turnagain Arm, once a critical transportation link, has the world's second largest tidal range. Visitors can stand along the shore lines and actually watch 30-foot tides move in and out of the arm. On occasion, the low roar of an oncoming bore tide can be heard as a wall of water sweeps up the Turnagain. A traveler through the alpine valleys and mountain passes of the Heritage Area can see evidence of retreating glaciers, earthquake subsidence, and avalanches. Dall sheep, beluga whales, moose, bald eagles, trumpeter swans, and Artic terns give glimpses of their presence. Through this rugged terrain humans have developed transportation routes into South-central and Interior Alaska. Travel was channeled through the valleys and on the rivers and fjord-like lakes. First came Alaska Natives, establishing trading paths. Later the Russians, gold rush stampeders, and all types of people arrived seeking access into the resource-rich land. The famous Iditarod Trail to Nome, which was used to haul mail in and gold out, started at Seward. A series of starts and stops by railroad entrepreneurs eventually culminated in the completion of the railroad from Seward to Fairbanks by the federal government. President Harding boarded the train in Seward in 1923 to drive the golden spike at Nenana (and died on the boat returning to Seattle). It was only in the last half of this century that the highway from Seward to Anchorage was opened. Before then the small communities of the area were linked to the rest of Alaska by wagon trail, rail, and by boat across Turnagain Arm and the Kenai River. The Heritage Area contains one of the earliest mining regions in Alaska. Russians left evidence of their search for gold at Bear Creek near Hope. In 1895, discovery of a rich deposit at Canyon Creak precipitated the Turnagain Arm Gold Rush, predating the stampede to the Klondike. The early settlements and communities of the area are still very much as they were in the past. But, as in the early days, this is a region where ``nature is boss,'' and historic trails and evidence of mining history are often embedded and nearly hidden in the landscape. What can be seen stands as powerful testimony to the human fortitude, perseverance, and resourcefulness that is America's proudest heritage from the people who settled the Alaskan frontier. People living in the Kenai Mountains--Turnagain Arm areas share a sense that it is a special place. In part, this is simply because of the sheer natural beauty; but it is also because the Alaska frontier is relative recent. Memories of the times when the inhabitants were dependent on their own resources, and on each other, are still very much alive. Communities are small, but they are alive with volunteerism. All have active historical societies. Groups in Seward and Girdwood have organized to rebuild the Iditarod Trail. In the town of Hope citizens constructed a museum of mining history, building it themselves out of logs and donated materials. Local people have conducted historic building surveys, written books and short histories, collected and published old diaries, and created web pages to record and share the history of their communities. Seward, the corridor's gateway, has created a delightful array of visitor opportunities that display and interpret the region's natural setting, Native culture, and history. National Heritage Area designation would greatly encourage and expand these good efforts. Mr. President, it is important to note that this National Heritage Area is a local grass roots effort and it will remain a locally driven grass roots effort. Decisions will be made by locals, not by Federal bureaucrats. The only role of the Federal Government is to provide technical expertise, mostly in the areas of the interpretation of the many historic sites and tremendous natural resource features that are found throughout the entire region. There will be no additional land ownership by the Federal Government or by the local management entity that is charged with putting together a coordinated plan to interpret the Heritage Area. The Heritage Area is about local people working together. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area in my State of Alaska. The Heritage Area, when enacted, will include the first leg of the Iditarod National Historic Trail and most of the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway. Through National Heritage designation these routes will be portrayed and interpreted as part of the whole picture of human history in the wider transportation corridor through the mountains, which includes early Native trade routes, connections by waterway, the railroad, and other trails and roadways. This proposal differs from the 16 existing National Heritage Areas. The fact that it would be one of a kind strengthens the case for designation. Unlike any of the existing National Heritage Areas, the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Historic Corridor will highlight the experience of the western frontier--of transportation and settlement in a difficult landscape--of the gold rush and resource development in a remote area. These are the themes of the proposal--themes that formed our perception of ourselves as a nation. The proposed Heritage Area wonderfully expresses these themes. Within the proposed Heritage Area there are a number of small historic communities that developed around transportation and the gold rush. They are dwarfed by the sweeping landscapes of the region, by the magnificence of the mountains, and the dominance and strength of nature. Turnagain Arm, once a critical transportation link, has the world's second largest tidal range. Visitors can stand along the shore lines and actually watch 30-foot tides move in and out of the arm. On occasion, the low roar of an oncoming bore tide can be heard as a wall of water sweeps up the Turnagain. A traveler through the alpine valleys and mountain passes of the Heritage Area can see evidence of retreating glaciers, earthquake subsidence, and avalanches. Dall sheep, beluga whales, moose, bald eagles, trumpeter swans, and Artic terns give glimpses of their presence. Through this rugged terrain humans have developed transportation routes into South-central and Interior Alaska. Travel was channeled through the valleys and on the rivers and fjord-like lakes. First came Alaska Natives, establishing trading paths. Later the Russians, gold rush stampeders, and all types of people arrived seeking access into the resource-rich land. The famous Iditarod Trail to Nome, which was used to haul mail in and gold out, started at Seward. A series of starts and stops by railroad entrepreneurs eventually culminated in the completion of the railroad from Seward to Fairbanks by the federal government. President Harding boarded the train in Seward in 1923 to drive the golden spike at Nenana (and died on the boat returning to Seattle). It was only in the last half of this century that the highway from Seward to Anchorage was opened. Before then the small communities of the area were linked to the rest of Alaska by wagon trail, rail, and by boat across Turnagain Arm and the Kenai River. The Heritage Area contains one of the earliest mining regions in Alaska. Russians left evidence of their search for gold at Bear Creek near Hope. In 1895, discovery of a rich deposit at Canyon Creak precipitated the Turnagain Arm Gold Rush, predating the stampede to the Klondike. The early settlements and communities of the area are still very much as they were in the past. But, as in the early days, this is a region where ``nature is boss,'' and historic trails and evidence of mining history are often embedded and nearly hidden in the landscape. What can be seen stands as powerful testimony to the human fortitude, perseverance, and resourcefulness that is America's proudest heritage from the people who settled the Alaskan frontier. People living in the Kenai Mountains--Turnagain Arm areas share a sense that it is a special place. In part, this is simply because of the sheer natural beauty; but it is also because the Alaska frontier is relative recent. Memories of the times when the inhabitants were dependent on their own resources, and on each other, are still very much alive. Communities are small, but they are alive with volunteerism. All have active historical societies. Groups in Seward and Girdwood have organized to rebuild the Iditarod Trail. In the town of Hope citizens constructed a museum of mining history, building it themselves out of logs and donated materials. Local people have conducted historic building surveys, written books and short histories, collected and published old diaries, and created web pages to record and share the history of their communities. Seward, the corridor's gateway, has created a delightful array of visitor opportunities that display and interpret the region's natural setting, Native culture, and history. National Heritage Area designation would greatly encourage and expand these good efforts. Mr. President, it is important to note that this National Heritage Area is a local grass roots effort and it will remain a locally driven grass roots effort. Decisions will be made by locals, not by Federal bureaucrats. The only role of the Federal Government is to provide technical expertise, mostly in the areas of the interpretation of the many historic sites and tremendous natural resource features that are found throughout the entire region. There will be no additional land ownership by the Federal Government or by the local management entity that is charged with putting together a coordinated plan to interpret the Heritage Area. The Heritage Area is about local people working together. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today the Senate will begin consideration of the veto override of S. 1287, the nuclear waste repository legislation. By previous consent, the time prior to 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided between Senator Murkowski and the Senators from Nevada. Senator Reid is on the floor. At 12:30 p.m., the Senate will recess for the weekly party conference meetings until 2:15 p.m. Following the conferences, there will be 1 hour of debate remaining on the nuclear waste veto override, with a vote scheduled to occur at 3:15 p.m. After the vote, the Senate will resume debate on S. 2, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, with votes possible throughout the evening. The leader thanks his colleagues for their attention.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Bingaman has indicated a desire to speak. I believe he is off the floor at this time and will be coming momentarily. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally taken off both sides.