Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the bankruptcy reform bill at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. There are several amendments remaining, and these amendments will be debated throughout the morning. All votes, including final passage of the bankruptcy legislation, will be stacked and are expected to occur at approximately 12 noon. After disposition of the bankruptcy bill, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the nomination of Alan Greenspan to continue as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 2. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume debate on S. 625, the bankruptcy reform bill, and Senator Schumer be recognized to call up his two remaining amendments.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to reflect a little bit on what is happening in our Nation. We got a little snow outside. Snow is not unknown to me or the State I represent. It is part of our livelihood. We live with the cold weather. We know how to handle it. But there is suddenly a great concern among a number of my colleagues and their constituents about the high price of heating and transportation fuels in the country, particularly in the northeastern part of the Nation. This morning in New Hampshire they said it was cold and clear. People were out to vote, but they were worried about the price of heating oil. I would like to discuss for a moment why some of these price increases are occurring, as well as appropriate and perhaps inappropriate ways we could respond. In mid-January, spot prices for heating oil spiked by about 50 cents. At one point, they closed at $1.36 per gallon. Gulf coast prices spiked, but they were pulled up, to a large degree, by the spike in New York State. One of the first places where consumers felt the impact was in home heating oil prices where, on January 21, they were up anywhere from 35 cents to 60 cents per gallon in the Northeast over the prior week. This was also felt in diesel prices, which have also risen dramatically. This is causing our trucking industry to seriously consider steep price increases, or even parking some of their trucks for a while. If you have not bought an airplane ticket this month, you should try it because you will find there is a $20 surcharge added to your ticket. This is to offset the increased costs of fuel oil. You cannot run these aircraft on hot air. You run them on kerosene. What is the cause of this price increase? For the most part, there are short-term causes that have so dramatically impacted the price in the Northeast, but there are also long-term issues that have impacted and will continue to impact the Nation. If we are looking at a quick fix, we can do that or we can look at the long run and figure out how we are going to take care of this problem. The short term problems include the combination of relatively low stocks of inventory, forecasts for colder than normal weather through early February, some barges being delayed because of storms, and some unexpected refinery problems. Additionally, we have refineries that were in transition. We have not built any new refineries in this country for a couple of decades for a very good reason: Nobody wants to invest in them because of the concern over the environmental consequences, the Superfund exposure, and so forth. Here we are, on the one hand, with an increasing demand for petroleum products, but because of the laws that were made by Congress which are so draconian, the investment community is reluctant to put in new, efficient refineries. As a consequence of the low stocks, the existing refiners are scurrying to locate immediate supplies, a number of utilities are chasing the limited supply, and we have a peaking cold weather demand. As you walk home tonight you will feel it. In short, it was a basic problem of too much demand chasing too little supply. There is some relief in that the New York spot distillate problem appears to be easing because the current refinery capacity currently is adequate to meet the needs, but there is going to be some delay in getting the supply delivered. Additionally, The good news about the high prices is that it usually speeds the arrival of product from someplace else. Indeed, it has been reported that at least a dozen tankers full of heating oil are on their way from Europe heading to the East Coast right now. There is an indication that as a result of this the price has dropped in the last few days. Unfortunately, even when this immediate problem is resolved, it is possible recurrences will happen as stocks are likely to stay low for the remainder of the winter. According to the Energy Information Agency, the EIA, ``the low-stock situation is worldwide and is not necessarily limited to distillate. It stems directly from what is happening in the crude oil markets.'' That is what we have to look toward. A continuing crude oil supply shortage is driving crude prices up, causing refiners worldwide to draw down stocks as the higher crude price squeeze margins. What is happening in those crude markets? If one looks at the worldwide crude market, it is evident there has been more petroleum demand than supply, requiring the use of stocks to meet petroleum demands. Following the extremely low prices at the beginning of 1999, OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, as well as Mexico, agreed to remove about 6 percent of the world's production from the market in order to work off excess inventories. And what else? To bring prices back. And they have been successful. Remarkably, the producing countries have shown strong discipline in adhering to these quotas. This has caused worldwide stocks, including those in the U.S., to be drawn down at very low levels. In particular, refiners drew stocks down in the fall rather than build them up for the winter. We are now in the middle of that winter, the usual high point of world demand, and we have low stocks. On top of this, OPEC members have been indicating that they will maintain their production cutbacks at least through March and possibly June, so there is no panacea here. The news, along with the cold weather, increased demand in Asia due to a faster than expected recovery of the Asian economy is behind the current crude surge which pushed west Texas intermediate crude past $30 a barrel briefly in January. There is a response to this. One I think is inappropriate and the other is appropriate. Let's look at the first one: How should we react. A number of my colleagues and some senior members of the administration have made suggestions about how we should react to this. The first suggestion made by some of my colleagues is let's release the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, to combat the high price of crude. This is the reserve we have in the salt caverns in the southern part of Louisiana and other areas. That oil is there for the national and energy security of the country in case there is an emergency. I believe such a decision to sell that oil would be disastrous from the standpoint of both national and security policy. Our Government has never tapped SPR to manipulate crude prices, and I do not think they should do so now. It is fair to say the administration tapped SPR to meet some of their budget requirements, but to manipulate crude prices is totally inappropriate. SPR was set up as a way to protect us from a severe supply disruption. By tapping SPR to manipulate price, we make ourselves even more vulnerable to the supply disruption. We need to recognize that price volatility has been a fundamental feature of crude oil markets for three decades and is common in the commodity markets. We also need to recognize we have made some classic policy blunders in attempting to reduce this volatility. Invariably, these measures, such as price controls in the seventies, clearly aggravated and perpetuated what would otherwise have been a much shorter lived problem. The second problem with this approach is it would only represent a partial plan. We cannot move forward with an energy strategy of ``sell oil when prices are high'' and not have a companion strategy of ``buy oil when prices are low.'' We have to mix the price structure in SPR. At one time, the administration proposed to buy and was buying at $40. The next minute, they wanted to sell at $27. There is a mentality up there that we somehow can make up the difference in volume. That does not work. What would be the purpose of depleting a reserve if we do not have a concrete plan to fill it? The second suggestion is to encourage other countries to ramp up their production levels so the United States can import more of their oil. Think about that. We are encouraging other nations to increase their production so we can get more of their oil so that we can be even more vulnerable to that particular supply. Even some of my friends on Pennsylvania Avenue have advocated this as a resolve. The Secretary of Energy has been quoted as saying: I am going to meet with the oil ministries of Venezuela, of Norway, Saudi Arabia, and others. This is a strategy to encourage the Venezuelans and Saudis to produce more oil and for the United States to become more dependent on those sources. Their strategy is to spend millions of dollars supporting development of oil fields in other nations. Here is the kicker: They have even supported policies that have allowed the Iraqis to produce more oil. That is our good friend, Saddam Hussein. Are the people of Iraq benefiting or are his Republican Guards? I do not have to tell you, Mr. President, because you know as well as I do. Their answers lead to nothing more than the export of American jobs and increased imports of foreign oil. Their answers make us more susceptible to price volatility in the future, not less. Finally, the third suggestion is that Congress appropriate more money next year to subsidize the Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance Program. I do not oppose this. However, throwing more money toward that program will not solve the underlying problem, and the underlying problem is very simple: We are not producing enough oil and gas in the United States. This is not to imply nothing can be done to protect ourselves from vulnerability to aggressive price policy by OPEC, there is a solution, and it begins at home. The old adage, charity begins at home, is a far better approach to reducing our vulnerability to OPEC pricing, and that should begin by addressing the problems of our domestic U.S. oil and gas industry. We can do that very easily. We do not have the luxury in the United States of manipulating stocks and influencing price. The reason we do not is because we are 56-percent dependent on imported oil. We are currently not that big, in terms of oil production, to manipulate world prices. We have to make our strategic decisions through drilling strategies, and when we look at what has happened to drilling in the United States, we ought to be gravely concerned about the future volatility of heating and transportation fuel prices in the U.S. In 1998, there was a decline of almost 60 percent in rigs drilling for oil in the United States. This was followed by a decline in the number of new and producing oil wells which was followed by a drop in our reserves. In 1998, only 24 percent of our domestic oil production was replaced by proven oil reserves. The bare results of 1998 was that thousands of oil industry workers were laid off, drilling contractors were cut to the bone, our stripper wells went dry, and marginal wells were shut in. This did not just happen. The administration knew what was going on. What did it do? It continued to thwart access by our domestic oil and gas industry to Federal lands where there was a promising likelihood of discovery. It continues to try to force an unfair rule change for calculating oil royalties down the throats of our domestic producers. This is a not-so-subtle message to our domestic producers--you are not wanted here. The only effect these policies will have is to ensure that we continue to be susceptible to being taken hostage by aggressive OPEC pricing strategies and that we continue to encourage an outflow of U.S. capital, ingenuity, and investment to foreign shores to produce foreign oil so we can become more dependent on those sources. Common sense tells us that if we are to become less dependent on OPEC pricing, if we want to be better able to respond to future price fluctuations, we must reinforce our domestic petroleum industry. I understand my Northeast colleagues' concern about their constituents paying too high a price for heating and transportation oil. Frankly, we pay a higher price in Alaska. But I am not here to debate that issue at this time. I am also puzzled that many of those same Members of this body have continued to support efforts that would increase our susceptibility to this price volatility. You can't have it both ways. We are dependent on foreign stocks for 56 percent of our supplies. The only way we are ever going to break this cycle of dependence on foreign oil and our vulnerability to price is by boosting our own production here at home. I can suggest that a good place to start is on the west coast. A good place to start is in my State of Alaska, where we have been supplying this Nation with 20 percent of its domestic oil for the last 20 years. Recently the U.S. Geologic Survey estimated that an area set aside by Congress for an evaluation of its oil and gas potential could have up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The 1998 estimate is the highest estimate ever published regarding the 1002 area. This body voted in 1995 to support environmentally sound exploration in this area. The Senate voted on this bill, but the Clinton administration vetoed the bill. They vetoed the ANWR bill. It has become a cry for environmentalism all over the country. If you initiate oil exploration in ANWR, you are going to violate this area, this pristine area. How many people have taken the time to understand the significance of ANWR? There are 19 million acres in ANWR. It is an area about the size of the State of South Carolina. What have we done to try to maintain protection in these areas? We have taken 8 million acres of the 19 million acres and put it in wilderness in perpetuity. We have taken another 9.5 million acres and protected it as a refuge in perpetuity. But we set aside 1.5 million acres in the coastal plain, the so-called 1002 area, under the jurisdiction of the Congress to make a determination whether that portion and that portion only could be opened up for exploration. Some of my colleagues talk about charity beginning at home, and suggest we ought to open up SPR. These are temporary measures that are basically impractical, that cut to the crux, if you will, of our national security interests, and don't resolve a long-term solution. What we should do is continue to advance science and technology, and develop domestic petroleum reserves. The conclusion is obvious: If you don't support the industry's expertise and capability through advanced technology to continue to explore whether it be onshore or offshore, then you better be prepared for higher prices and the Northeast corridor better be prepared for price hikes as a consequence of cold weather, because we are looking right down the double barrels of the guns of control. Those guns of control come from the Mideast countries. I think Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson has been quite correct in his response. He has agreed that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is to be used only for emergencies associated with our national energy security interests and not for price manipulation. He has also postponed delivery on 5 million barrels of oil that the SPR would take at this time, an action which I think is responsible because it is intended to put more oil into the market and ease prices. It is going to help, but it is not going to help enough. The President has released 44 million in emergency heating fuel funds. While I support these efforts, they alone are not enough. These are stopgap measures. They don't address the real problem of our continuing reliance on foreign oil and the resulting fact that we are going to be dancing to the tune of OPEC for the foreseeable future until we have the intestinal fortitude to recognize that we can develop domestic sources of oil and gas in the United States, and we can keep our jobs at home and lessen our dependence on imported oil. Look at the facts. The fact is, during the tenure of this administration, U.S. demand for oil has increased 14 percent, and our domestic production, strangled by this administration's policies, has decreased 17 percent. You can't have it both ways. I am sympathetic to those Members who represent the Northeast corridor and are feeling the impact of a cold winter and high fuel prices. I would propose the following to address these concerns through the enhancement of a domestic industry policy. First, give the industry greater access to Federal lands in the United States, both on and offshore, limiting to those States that want OCS activity. Louisiana is a good example; Texas is another. They recognize the contribution. They recognize the capability of the industry to do it safely. For the most part, the industry has done a pretty good job. We should, second, develop incentive programs to make the U.S. oil and gas market more competitive in the world market. We should open up that tiny area of the Arctic oil reserve to environmentally sound exploration. Let's face it. Alaska produces 20 percent of the crude oil that this country enjoys today. That was authorized by the Senate on a tie vote where the Vice President had to break the tie to authorize the development of that. There was great speculation that the 800-mile pipeline would somehow stop the caribou, would stop the moose. That has survived earthquakes, dynamite, shootings. It is one of the construction wonders of the world. Where would we have been without it? You would have had higher prices today, Mr. President. Third, strengthen the Department of Energy's research and development program. We are going to be using petroleum products for a long, long time. You are not going to fly an airplane on solar or wind. You are going to fly it on fuel. Fourth, once and for all, throw out the MMS's attempts to change the rules on oil valuation. Finally, let me refer to some who suggest that we don't need to look to the future of oil. We have a lot of gas in this country. It is just a matter of time. Gas is cheap. Let me refer you to a recent report by the National Petroleum and Gas Council. The demand for gas is going to be increasing about one-third in the next 10 years. There are going to be about 14 million new hookups for gas. The expenditure for that gas is going to be about $1.5 trillion. Hearings that we have had in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee show us that we do not have the infrastructure in place and we don't have access domestically to areas that have the potential for producing gas because the administration won't open them up for exploration. I see my good friend from New York on the floor. I know of his interest in this crisis that is hitting the Northeast corridor. I encourage him and others to look toward a long-term solution. A long- term solution speaks for itself. It suggests through technology, with proper environmental safeguards, we can encourage more oil and gas exploration and development right here in this country, as opposed to increasing our dependence on OPEC where we are going to continue to have this problem, not just this February, but we are going to have it this March. And we are going to have it next November and December and January, only by that time we might be 60 to 65 percent dependent on imported oil, as the Department of Energy suggests. Then you are going to have prices that are going to be coming down around our ears, and inflation will be attributed to a large degree to the price of oil and gas as a consequence to our increased dependence on imports. Bottom line: Charity begins at home.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on November 1 of this year, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported S. 623, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999, to the Senate. The legislation amends existing law in an effort to address the water needs of North Dakota. The legislation, as is true of most water related legislation in the arid West, is not without controversy. Proposals to divert water from the Missouri River to meet agricultural, municipal and industrial, and other needs in North Dakota have a long history. The Missouri, like the Colorado and the Columbia, serves many States and a multitude of interests, including navigation. The Missouri is also important to the management and operation of the Mississippi. Although there are sufficient resources in each of those Basins to meet all the water related needs if the resources were developed using on-stream and off-stream storage, that development has not occurred and for various reasons, including what I believe are short sighted concerns by national organizations, are not likely to occur in the near term. That being the case, it is not surprising that whenever any Basin State manages to corral all the competing interests in its State and even obtains support from the Administration that other States that could be potentially affected want to examine the agreement and reassure themselves that this particular solution does not come at their expense. The best way to accomplish that is to bring all the parties together to allow them to review their concerns and work out whatever arrangement will best address their needs. Our Committee did just that several years ago as part of the legislation to settle the water claims of the Colorado Ute Tribes. Once we had revised the agreement in a fashion that was acceptable to the Tribes, the State of Colorado, and the other affected water users, we then had several weeks in intense discussions with the other Colorado River Basin States. I want to point to that process, because it did result in the passage of legislation that was supported by all the parties and provided for the completion of the Dolores and Animas projects. I rise today to speak and offer reassurance to the North Dakota delegation and the Missouri delegation that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is committed to assisting these two delegations in working out their difficulties regarding S. 623, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999. I appreciate the hard work and good will expressed by both delegations over the past several weeks, but we have just run out of time in this session of Congress to address the concerns of all affected states. To continue these discussions, I have proposed to my colleagues that when Congress returns next year, the Energy Committee will hold a workshop or other forum so that the Senate can fully identify, discuss, and attempt to resolve the issues that have prevented this legislation from moving this year. With the assistance of my colleagues, I propose that the Energy Committee staff work with their staffs during the recess and that we convene a meeting during the first week in February to bring all the parties together. Hopefully, if we use the time well during the recess, we can identify who the technical people are who need to be involved so that the delegations will be able to have a constructive meeting. I want to note that Senator Smith, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, who held the hearings earlier this year on the legislation has indicated that he is also willing to assist in this process.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of the senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, in his capacity as chair of the full Committee on Appropriations, and the senior senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, who is chair of the Interior Subcommittee, regarding clarification of a vital issue facing the State of Alaska. The Year 2000 will be the 20th anniversary of the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. ANILCA is the most far-reaching piece of legislation ever passed--in the history of the United States--in terms of creating massive set-asides for conservation purposes. Last year, in the appropriations conference report, Congress passed specific language requiring that the federal managers chosen from around the United States to oversee the implementation of ANILCA's Conservation Units receive adequate, in-depth training on its many components and ramifications. The language read as follows: The Committees agree that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture should provide comprehensive training to land managers on the history and provisions of statutes affecting land and natural resource management in Alaska, including but not limited to Revised Statute 2477, the Act of May 17, 1906 (34 Stat. 197), the Alaska Statehood Act, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the White Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. When this language passed it was our hope that this training would also be provided to those employees who manage programs in Alaska and to employees whose jobs entail knowledge of one or more of the laws described above. I want to further clarify that it is our hope that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture would enter into an agreement with, and provide funding to, Alaska Pacific University, in conjunction with University of Washington School of Law and Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College, to develop and conduct training. I feel training in these laws very specific to Alaska is badly needed, as most federal employees arriving in the state know little about Arctic and sub-Arctic environments. Many people coming to Alaska imagine incorrectly that the statute governing Alaska's federal Parks and Refuges is identical to those they have worked with in the South 49. This, of course, is far from the truth. Because of the dimensions of ANILCA's reclassification of Alaska's lands, encompassing more than 104 million acres, an area larger that the State of California, the Congress rightfully tailored the law with a series of Alaska-specific provisions, unfamiliar to other states. The purpose of these provisions was clearly intended to ensure that these land designations protect the natural glories of Alaska's most beautiful regions but neither destroy the way of life of Alaska's Native people nor violate the promises made to all Alaskans in the Compact made between our people and the U.S. Government in the Alaska Statehood Bill. During the August recess, I held hearings in Alaska to discover how the federal managers of the federal Conservation Units in Alaska are doing in carrying out and living by the provisions required in the law. Sadly, I must report a long litany of abuses being suffered by Alaskans as individuals, as outdoor sports participants, as business owners, and as a community due to ignorance by federal managers. Much of this ignorance is through honest misunderstanding of the Statute. I, therefore, ask my honorable colleagues to respond to my query about the status of the language passed last year that would fill this void. I also want to call to your attention that Alaska Pacific University's Institute of the North has followed up on that language, and is inaugurating a semester course this coming semester addressing all of these issues on the 20th anniversary of ANILCA. All stakeholders--from conservationists to Native peoples to resource harvesters--will be part of the discussions and learning process. The University is working with Lewis and Clark's Northwestern School of Law to develop the needed legal research in this area. And while the University was invited to participate at its own expense in the one-day ANILCA training held here in Washington this spring, I believe the Interior Department and the Department of Agriculture have done no more than that to fulfill Congressional intent. I believe a good curriculum can be developed at a cost of some $300,000, a small investment for an issue this important. The existing course can be re-formatted in a thorough but intensive week-long seminar and delivered specifically for the federal employees who constantly are rotated into Alaska to serve on the front line of this pioneering experiment in conservation and sustainable development.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President, and through the chair, thank you to my colleagues. We have considered making this a legal requirement in an amendment to law, but I believe this year--in the 20th anniversary of ANILCA--we should see that the training gets started. We will be following it closely in the year to come, and we appreciate the comments provided by the committee chairman and the manager of the bill. blm closure of twin falls airtanker reload base

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friends from Alaska and Nevada for that clarification. It is also my understanding that the provision is intended to protect large investments made in mining operations approved by the Department of Interior under its old interpretation of the law. Frankly, it would be shameful for us to endorse the actions of a Federal agency that approves a project, allows the proponent to spend millions of dollars to develop it, and then changes its mind about what the law says and on that basis shuts the operation down. I understand that the provision would protect these enormous investments and the jobs they create from such arbitrary action by the Department of Interior.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the chairman for that clarification. Finally, as my friend knows, mining operations are large, complex undertakings, and circumstances change all the time, requiring changes in the plan of operations. Miners must ask the BLM and Forest Service to approve amendments to their plans all the time in order to keep operating. In fact, the BLM and Forest Service often require these miners to amend their plans. I'm concerned that unless these types of amendments to existing plans are protected, the provision we are adopting would be of very little value. The BLM or the Forest Service could simply require an operator of a large existing mine to amend its plan of operations, and then deny the plan amendment and shut down the operation on the basis of the Solicitor's opinion. I would like clarification that amendments to existing plans are protected by the provision.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today is a uniquely historic day. One hundred and thirty six years ago, Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address. 80 years ago today, the United States Senate rejected the ill- conceived League of Nations. And 30 years ago, the second manned Apollo capsule landed on the moon and two more Americans walked on the surface of the moon. But for the family of Deanna Tanner Okun, this is a singular day. For the United States Senate has just confirmed her Presidential nomination to be a Commissioner on the International Trade Commission. (ITC). I would note that it has taken Deanna barely nine days to go from nomination to confirmation. That could be close to a Senate record. One of the reasons that Deanna's nomination has sped through so quickly is because the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Bill Roth, and the Ranking Member, Pat Moynihan were willing to put in the work to hold a confirmation hearing barely six days after Deanna was nominated. I greatly appreciate their work in expediting that hearing. But most importantly, I believe the primary reason Deanna's confirmation has gone so smoothly is because of the universal admiration and respect that Senators and professional staff hold for her. Deanna is simply a consummate professional and I know that the Senate's loss will be offset by the tremendous gain that is being achieved today by the ITC. today. I know the Commission will never be the same once Deanna is sworn in. Mr. President, I have been privileged to have worked with Deanna for more than five years. I cannot imagine anyone who is more qualified to become a Commissioner on the International Trade Commission. Not only is Deanna remarkably bright, she is one of the most thorough and conscientious individuals I have ever met. She is fully versed in all aspects of international trade matters and an expert on U.S. foreign policy issues. No one can doubt her intellectual and professional capacity to serve as a Commissioner. Mr. President, I want to repeat some of my prepared remarks for Deanna's confirmation hearing. But I want to tell the United States Senate a little about Deanna, the person. she is a remarkably affable and charming individual who, no matter what the pressures--whether negotiating in a markup of a trade bill or working under the time constraints of a hearing on spying at U.S. weapons laboratories--Deanna never loses her professionalism. She always gets the job done. In the years that she has worked on my staff, she has had to deal with some of the most difficult and tough Senate staffers in the leadership and on many committees. I know that every single one of those staff people have universal respect and admiration for the work Deanna does and the charm she brings to the job. That is a singular feat that few other Senate staffers can claim. Finally, Mr. President, I would note that three years ago, Deanna changed her work schedule from five days a week to four days a week. She did this because she wanted to spend more time raising her two beautiful daughters, Kelsi and Rachel. I can unhesitatingly tell you that in those four days at work, she produces what other staffers could maybe produce in five, more likely six days. She is truly remarkable as a mother and as a professional staffer. She is a stellar person and I know that her husband Bob and her parents take great pride in her confirmation. It is difficult to lose Deanna after all these years. I will miss her, but I know that the world trade community will greatly benefit from her appointment to the Commission. Thank you, Mr. President and to Deanna, I wish you the best of success in your new position. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I object.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate convenes, it will begin consideration of a number of legislative items that have been cleared for action and need to be considered in the House prior to adjournment. Following the consideration of these bills, the Senate will resume debate on the final appropriations bill. Further, as a reminder, cloture was filed today on the appropriations conference report, and there is still hope that the Wisconsin delegation will allow the cloture vote to occur at a reasonable hour during tomorrow's session. However, if no agreement is made, the cloture vote will occur at 1:01 a.m. on Saturday morning, and abbreviated postcloture debate is anticipated. Therefore, Senators can expect a vote to occur a few hours after the cloture vote. In addition, the Senate may consider the Work Incentives conference report prior to the pending adjournment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Friday, November 19. I further ask consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate then proceed to morning business.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In responding to my friend from Massachusetts, about 6 minutes. I am satisfied if we go back and forth, as suggested, it would concur with the unanimous consent agreement pending.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask consent that there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with any Senator permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the senior Senator from West Virginia. What we have now is a situation concerning mining in the U.S. where a crucial decision is either going to be made to maintain an atmosphere where mining can continue or through the prevailing attitude within the Clinton administration to simply drive this industry offshore. The Clinton administration, by its actions, evidently opposes the working people of America who are involved in mining. Those opposing Senator Byrd's proposal basically are destroying the entire coal industry which exists west of the Mississippi--the mine workers whose jobs depend on that industry, the railroad workers, the barge men, and the truck drivers. I think it is important to note that Senator Byrd's amendment directs the application of the Clean Water Act to be returned to the way it was at the beginning of October of this year. Senator Byrd's amendment does not change the law. It does not change any practice that has been followed over the years. It is our job to change the law--not the White House and not the courts. Senator Byrd's amendment gives the Congress and the Federal agencies time to apply existing law without destroying the coal mining industry of this country--time to apply the law, or make such adjustments that are necessary in a way that protects the environment, the coal mining industry, and all those who depend upon that industry for their well- being. We are looking for a balance. The administration's proposal throws this out of balance. The amendment goes further. There are two additional issues involved. One deals with the recent Solicitor's opinion that would throw out 127 years of precedent on the size of mill sites--only 5 acres per claim, if followed through with, this would make mining on public lands absolutely impossible. I do not know how many Members have an idea about what it takes to make up a mine. The mine needs a mill site, grinding and crushing facilities, shops, processing plants, tailings disposal, headquarters, a water plant, parking lots, and roads. This simply cannot fit on the space provided within the 5-acre mill site per claim. It simply can't be done. This is how they propose to eliminate mining. In my State of Alaska, we would not have a new mine developed, nor could we. You are depriving us and this country the right to produce minerals from the rich resources we have. Make no mistake; the Solicitor wrote the opinion to end mining in the West, to drive mining offshore, to drive the jobs offshore, and to drive the dollars offshore. The provision in this amendment would allow mining operations that have been submitting plans prior to a recent Solicitor's opinion to continue under the law and the precedent that was relied on the developed plan. The second issue is also a simple provision that would require the administration to follow sound science for a change--not emotion. The provision would limit the ability of the Secretary of the Interior to propose new hard rock mining regulations for those areas where the National Academy of Science found that there were deficiencies. Why not give science a chance instead of emotion? Finally, the National Academy of Science found that State and current Federal regulations on hard rock mining sufficiently protected the environment and needed only a few changes to bring it up to current standards. What is wrong with the objective of the National Academy of Science? There are two simple provisions: One that provides fundamental fairness by allowing companies that have relied on 127 years of interpretation to continue while the courts sort out whether this new interpretation is legal; and one that requires the administration to follow and comply with sound science. We are calling for fundamental fairness and sound science. But the White House, in its single-minded determination to end the domestic mining industry, seems to have denied us both. I certainly appreciate the support of the senior Senator from West Virginia. He has a sympathy and an understanding for the needs of the mining industry. Unfortunately, we have seen these differences of opinion between the West and the East. But we certainly now have a common interest. There is going to be little for the domestic mining industry to celebrate this Thanksgiving. The White House, to serve its environmental constituency and the aspirations of, I guess, the Vice President, has abandoned the call for sound science. They are appealing to emotion. We need fairness. We need to meet the needs of the men and women who labor in our mines. This Nation will pay the price as coal mines in West Virginia, mining sites throughout the West, and in my State of Alaska close. Good, honest jobs that built this Nation will be lost. Union and nonunion workers will join the bread line that this administration will leave as its legacy for the mining industry. I yield the floor. I thank the President for his patience and perseverance.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the time Senate Report No. 623 was filed, the Congressional Budget Office report was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the report which is now available be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on November 2, 1999, I filed Report 206 to accompany S. 977, that had been ordered favorably reported on October 20, 1999. At the time the report was filed, the estimates by Congressional Budget Office were not available. The estimate is now available and concludes that enactment of S. 977 would ``result in no significant costs to the federal government.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, earlier this year the Alaska Legislature passed a resolution honoring Alaska's Veterans of Underage Military Service. This is an important veterans organization in Alaska, and I would like to let the Senate know a little bit about it by submitting the text of the state resolution in the Record. I ask that the resolution be printed in the Record. The resolution follows: Resolution of the Alaska Legislature Honoring Alaska's Veterans of Underage Military Service The Twenty-first Alaska State Legislature is proud to commend Veterans of Underage Military Service and its members for their attempts to locate and assist all underage veterans of America's armed forces. Throughout history, nations have called upon their youth to fight their wars, and it is inevitable that some men and women under the legal age, usually driven by strong patriotism, have enlisted in the armed forces. In some instances, these youth were discovered and separated from the service having already seen action. After being discharged from one branch of service for being underage, many promptly enlisted in another branch of the armed services. The Twenty-first Alaska State Legislature recognizes these men and women who understood the importance of fighting for freedom and honors their valiant efforts as defenders of the United States of America during times of war and peril. The Veterans of Underage Military Service Veterans was formed in 1990 to help such individuals, who were frequently discharged from the service and stripped of their awards and their military benefits. The goal of the Veterans of Underage Military Service organization is to contact all veterans who served in any branch of the United States Armed Forces when they were under legal age and to advise and assist them in obtaining a proper discharge and veterans' benefits. A secondary goal is to establish a historical record of underage veterans by publishing their names, deeds, and stories. The organization currently consists of more than 1,000 members nationwide who served in the United States Armed Forces before they were of legal age. The Twenty-first Alaska State Legislature wishes to recognize Alaska's own members of the Veterans of Underage Military Service: Judd Clemens, Michael Mitchell, Gordon Severson, Gene Wheeler, Larry Connolly, Miles Pierce, Elsie Sexton, and Thor Weatherby. We, the members of the Twenty-first Alaska State Legislature honor the Veterans of Underage Military Service. We commend them for their attempts to locate and assist all underage veterans of the United States Armed Forces and support their efforts to make ``whole'' these national heroes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In responding to the Senator from Alabama, a little over $15 billion has been paid to the Federal Government. The Federal Government agreed to take the waste beginning in 1998. Clearly, that date has come and gone.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. No fatalities. I thank my friend from New Mexico.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I might add also, there is a significant legal obligation for noncompliance with that contractual agreement, somewhere between $50 and $80 billion. I happen to be a banker and know something about money, but I am not as familiar as perhaps a lawyer would be with the significance of a settlement for damages, but it is going to cost the taxpayer a bundle.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The only explanation I can give my friend from Alabama is, for reasons I can only assume are associated with the objections from antinuclear groups, this administration has simply chosen to ignore its obligation on the issue of nuclear waste. We have an industry that is strangling on its own waste. Our technology has created that waste. On the other hand, we are dependent for about 20 percent of our power on nuclear power generation. Obviously, it has made a substantial contribution to the air quality because there are no air emissions from nuclear power. As we look at the French, they are almost 90-percent dependent on nuclear energy. They have chosen not to be held hostage by the Mideast as they were in the 1973-74 timeframe. So they have developed almost entirely their power generation on a nuclear power generating industry and their sophistication of disposing of the waste is through technology. They take the waste and reprocess it, recover the plutonium, put it back in the reactors, and burn it, and hence reduce the proliferation. The residue is vitrified like a glass and that is buried, but it has a relatively short life. So while we are committed to permanently disposing of our high-level waste at Yucca, there is another alternative that we have precluded ourselves from pursuing, which, in my opinion, is probably the right way to go, and it is the way the Japanese are going as well.