Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I rise today to introduce legislation to construct and operate a visitor center for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River on land owned by the State of New York, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis of the legislation, and the administration letter of transmittal be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I rise today to introduce legislation to construct and operate a visitor center for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River on land owned by the State of New York, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis of the legislation, and the administration letter of transmittal be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I rise today to introduce legislation to modify the boundaries of Saint- Gaudens National Historic Site, in the State of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis of the legislation, and the administration's letter of transmittal be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend the authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a summary of the legislation, and the administration's letter of transmittal be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I rise today to introduce legislation to modify the boundaries of Saint- Gaudens National Historic Site, in the State of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a section-by-section analysis of the legislation, and the administration's letter of transmittal be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend the authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a summary of the legislation, and the administration's letter of transmittal be printed in the Record for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Snowe Amendment--an amendment to rid the tragic practice of drive-through'' mastectomies. Mr. President, one out of nine American women will suffer the tragedy of breast cancer. It is today the leading cause of death for women between the ages of 35 to 54. Alaskan women are particularly vulnerable to this disease. We have the second highest rate of breast cancer in the nation. 1 in 7 Alaska women will get breast cancer and tragically it is the Number One cause of death among Native Alaskan women. We know that these deaths are preventable--and the key to prevention is early detection. It is estimated that breast cancer deaths can be reduced by 30 percent if all women avail themselves of regular clinical breast examination and mammography. I'm proud of the work that this body has done in the recent past to expand Medicare and Medicaid coverage for mammographies. I am also proud of the efforts that my wife Nancy has done in expanding early detection efforts throughout Alaska. You see, Mr. President, for many Alaska women, especially native women living in one of our 230 remote villages, regular screening and early detection are often hopeless dreams. For 25 years, my wife Nancy has recognized this problem and did something about it. In 1974, she and a group of Fairbanks' women created the Breast Cancer Detection Center, for the purpose of offering mammographies to women in remote areas of Alaska--regardless of a woman's ability to pay. Now, the Center uses a small portable mammography unit which can be flown to remote areas of Alaska, offering women in the most rural of areas easy access to mammographies at no cost. Additionally, the Center uses a 43-foot long, 14 foot high and 26,000 pound mobile mammography van to travel through rural areas of Alaska. The van makes regular trips, usually by river barge, to remote areas in Interior Alaska such as Tanana. Julie Roberts, a 42-year-old woman of Tanana, who receives regular mammographies from the mobile mammography van, knows the importance of early screening: There's a lot of cancer here (in Tanana)--a lot of cancer. That's why it's important to have the mobile van here . . . I know that if I get checked, I can catch it early and can probably save my life. I have three children and I want to see my grandchildren. I am proud to say that the Fairbanks Center now serves about 2,200 women a year and has provided screenings to more than 25,000 Alaska women in 81 villages throughout the states. To help fund the efforts of the Fairbanks Center, each year Nancy and I sponsor a fishing tournament to raise money for the operation of the van and mobile mammography unit. After just three years, donations from the tournament have totalled over $1 million. Mr. President, Nancy and I are committed to raising more funds for this important program so that every women in Alaska can benefit from the advances of modern technology and reduce their risk of facing this killer disease. But, Mr. President, the fight against breast cancer does not end with detection of the disease. That is why I stand in strong support of Senator Snowe's amendment. Her amendment will once and for all put an end to the practices of so-called drive-through'' mastectomies. In too many cases women who survive the trauma of a mastectomy are being forced to get out of the hospital only hours after their surgery. How can medical care professionals allow this? Simply because many insurance companies demand that the procedure of a mastectomy be considered an out-patient service.'' Here's the horror that many insurance companies cause: Nancy Couchot, a 60 year old woman had a radical mastectomy at 11:30 a.m. She was released from the hospital five hours --even though she was not able to walk or use the rest room without assistance. Victoria Berck, had a mastectomy and lymph node removal at 7:30 a.m. Seven hours later, she was given instructions on how to empty two drains attached to her body and sent home. Ms. Berck concludes, No civilized country in the world has a mastectomy as an out-patient service.'' Mr. President, it's for these very reasons that I am in strong support of Senator Snowe's amendment. Specifically, the amendment will require health insurance companies to allow physicians to determine the length of a mastectomy patient's hospital stay according to medical necessity. In other words, the bill makes it illegal to punish a doctor for following good medical judgment and sound medical treatment. This amendment is important follow-up to legislation that I and many in this Body worked on worked on to ensure that mastectomy patients have access to reconstructive surgery. Prior to our efforts in last year's Omnibus bill, scores of women were denied reconstructive surgery following mastectomies because insurers have deemed the procedure to be cosmetic'' and, therefore, not medically necessary. Mr. President, far too often breast cancer victims, who believe that they have adequate health care coverage, are horrified when they learn basic and sound medical practices are not covered in their health plan. Mr. President, these issues are not partisan issues. We may have our differences regarding managing and financing health reform, but I think we all endorse accessible and affordable health care that preserves patient choice and physician discretion. Cancer does not look to see the politics of its victims.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that on Friday, July 16, 1999, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold an oversight hearing on Damage to the National Security from Chinese Espionage at DOE Nuclear Weapons Laboratories. The hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Those who wish further information may wright to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. committee on indian affairs

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on July 6, 1924, the first non- stop flight between Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska occurred. The flight was made in an old water-cooled Hissopowered Standard J-1 open- cock-pit biplane and was flown by Noel Wien and Bill Yunker. The Wein name is synonymous with Alaska aviation. It is said that Noel Wien's flight between Anchorage and Fairbanks was the start of Wein Air Alaska. I will quote for the Record an account of the early days as told by Noel Wein. The change has been great both in aviation and the city of Fairbanks since that memorable day, July 6, 1924, when, sitting behind an old water-cooled Hisso powered Standard J-1 open-cockpit biplane, Bill Yunker and I landed here after flying non-stop from Anchorage. We had flown up at night, thus taking advantage of the smoother air. The smoke was very thick for the last 80 miles and kept us guessing all the time. It was even difficult to follow the railroad tracks from Nenana on in. There was intrigue about the stillness of the air and the frontier atmosphere of Fairbanks, which made me like the north from that first day. For two weeks we couldn't find our way cross-country due to the forest fire smoke, but when it cleared up we were busy. People her took to the air quickly. They were of the hardy type, willing to take a gamble. Ben Eielson had made a number of flights that spring, before I arrived. He had also started a company the year before, in the summer of 1923, and had brought in an old reliable OX-5 Curtis Jenny JN-4D open cockpit World War I training plane. Due to the interest created by Eielson's earlier pioneering, we had little trouble getting flying business to the outlying mining camps. Livengood, located 60 miles northwest of here, was one of the best of the gold producing camps. The first season in 1924, we made 34 flights to Livengood, and in the summer of 1925, 43 flights. All went smoothly until mid-summer of 1925. We had purchased a supposedly major overhauled plane from Lincoln, Nebraska, one of the Hisso Standard build-up headquarters. The engine worked fine on the flight over to Livengood, but on the return trip something happened. All of a sudden the water from the cooling system of the engine gave us a shower bath. I knew that because of the loss of water the engine would get so hot it would stop running. We were about half- way back to Fairbanks, near Wickersham Dome. I spotted a shelf to one side of the dome which seemed like the only possible chance to get down without breaking up or going over on our back. We were cruising lower than the 2,500 foot shelf, so we had to use power to get up to it. The old engine was steaming plenty when we got to a landing approach. It turned out to be a fair landing place and we stayed right side up and landed without breaking anything. It turned out that the water pump had broken in flight, which in turn had thrown the water out. The two passengers and myself walked in to Olnes, on the Chatanika River, over the tussuk covered trail. One passenger, an old Sourdough, had no trouble walking out. The other passenger, an insurance adjuster, had flown over on both business and pleasure. This passenger, I would say, was my first tourist, and possibly the first flying tourist passenger in Alaska. He had on oxford shoes and was about to give up before we arrived at the Chatanika River. It is not my intent in these articles to be writing of my experiences, but instead to give some idea of the progress made in aviation and the change of times in the north. Having had to discontinue flying in the fall of 1924 because of the open cockpit of the old Hisso Standard, a decision was made to try to get a cabin plane with an air cooled motor for use in wintertime. Because I was going ``outside'' for the winter to visit my folks in Minnesota, it worked out well for me to make a tour of the states to see what was being built. I found that about all that was being built was a very small number of open cockpit planes with old XO-5 and Hisso motors. One exception was the Huff Deland company which was building planes with an open front seat for two passengers and a pilot seat in the rear. This plane had an early model Wright air cooled engine of about 200 horsepower, but we had decided not to settle for anything but a cabin plane. Both the Wright company and the Curtiss company did their best to locate the type of plane we wanted, but their efforts were unsuccessful. We finally had to settle on a Dutch built Fokker F-111 or F-3, a six-place monoplane which K.L.M. and early German airlines had already been using on some kind of schedule service in Europe. This plane had been built in 1921 and it was already the spring of 1925. There still were no cabin planes being built in the United States. The Atlantic Aircraft Company, a dealer for Fokker, had three ships available. We bought one of them that had been used some, for $9,500. We shipped it all the way to Fairbanks via the Panama Canal. It had a German 6 cylinder engine of 235 horsepower. The cabin was very plush with curtains and all the trimmings. This ship proved conclusively that a cabin airplane was the type to use in Alaska even though we could not use it through the winter of 1925-26 because it had no brakes except for a tail skid which helped to stop it. It had a rather streamlined monoplane wing and took a minimum of 1,000 feet to stop after the three points were firmly on the ground. We had some close shaves on sand bars and fields 1,000 or under, during the summers of 1925-26. Our flying out of Fairbanks was the only cross-country flying in the Territory at that time. There was one other airline at Ketchikan where Roy Jones was doing some flying with an old two-place navy training flying boat. We were successful with the flying of the Fokker F-111 and made the first commercial flight to Nome, carrying 4 passengers and 500 pounds of baggage, a 1,200 pound load. We flew non-stop back here in 6 hours and 55 minutes. That's all for now. Noel.--Originally published in the ``Wien Alaska Arctic Liner'' August 1956. On July 6, 1999, the 75th anniversary of the first non-stop flight, the sons of Noel Wien, Richard and Merrill, will pay homage to their late father's legacy. In commemoration, they will retrace the journey in a refurbished Boeing Stearman biplane, which was built in 1943. This type of plane was used to train pilots in World War II. They will leave from the Delaney Park Strip in Anchorage, which is now a public park, and land at Fairbanks International Airport. The original landing site in Fairbanks, Weeks Field, has since been developed and houses the Noel Wien Public Library. After all his years of flying, Richard gained a whole new respect for his father's flying ability when he and his son, Michael, flew the refurbished biplane from Seattle. They made the trip in early May and encountered winter conditions during the flight. It did not take long to realize that they weren't within the confines of a closed, heated cabin. Both Richard and Merrill continued in their father's footsteps. They are both commercially rated pilots with thousands of flying hours between them. They were both involved with Wien Air Alaska and then when the family sold it, the brothers opened up a helicopter business. Although Richard and Merrill are no longer involved in the commercial side of aviation, it's in the blood. Organizing this event was a labor of love for Richard Wien. He also credits his major sponsor the Alaska Airmen's Association for helping to make it happen in addition to other individuals and organizations. He is embarking on this trip to honor his father and also the 75th anniversary of the first airmail run made by Ben Eielson. My heartiest congratulations to Richard and Merrill Wien for organizing this wonderful tribute to their father and also for keeping the pioneering aviation spirit alive through this commemorative flight.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today Marcia Kozie, who heads up my State office in Fairbanks, will retire from Federal service. She has served in this capacity since 1981. When I think of my Fairbanks office, I think of an advisor and friend, Marcia Kozie. She knows everyone in town and stays current on all the issues involving Federal, State and local governments. If I want to know the whole story, I call Marcia. I know the old addage goes, ``no one is irreplaceable,'' but Marcia's boots will be difficult to fill. She has trailblazed for me these many years and her calm demeanor and soothing voice can smooth out the many wrinkles we often encounter. When you cross the threshold of the Fairbanks office, you are always welcomed by a cheerful smile, a kind word and a sympathetic ear. Marcia Kozie has always had these winning ways, even during the most difficult of times. We all sometimes shoot the messenger by mistake, but Marcia's demeanor has always worked like a charm. Her ability to see the glass half full instead of empty, her cool head in times of crises and her genuine concern for my constituency have been worth more to me and Nancy and my office than a ton of Alaska gold. You just can't buy this kind of service. Even though Marcia made her way to Alaska via Vermont, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Texas, she lived in the Fairbanks community for over 19 years before she came to work for me. In typical Marcia fashion, she immersed herself in the community getting involved with her three children and their activities, her husband Walt's business and many philanthropic groups who provided a special insight into Fairbanks community affairs. She told me in her first interview that even though she had not worked for many years, she was adaptable and proficient in whatever the task. She continued by saying this was a God-given talent and that she didn't think He had taken it away from her, yet. And I have never regretted that decision to hire Marcia. While her Federal service will end, I know she will be devoting her time to spreading those God-given talents around the community. She will be missed by all the staff members in both the Washington, DC, and State offices. It is with deep appreciation and gratitude that I thank her for 18 years of a job well done. As a matter of fact, the mayor of Fairbanks has proclaimed today, June 30, 1999, as Marcia Kozie Day in Fairbanks. Toodle-loo, my loyal friend. Thank you for your service to this country, the State of Alaska and the people of Fairbanks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999. I am introducing this legislation on behalf of the Administration. At this point I am neither prepared to support nor object to any of the specific provisions contained within this legislative proposal. It is my intention however, to hold hearings on this important legislation and the withdrawal renewals contained within it. After those hearings have been held and we have had the benefit of input from the parties most effected by the withdrawals, I am prepared to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which makes such needed changes as are identified during the hearing process. This legislation renews the withdrawals contained within P.L. 99-606, enacted by Congress in 1986. This Congressional action withdrew 7.2 million acres of public land for use by the Department of Defense at six installations. The affected bases are the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in Arizona, Nellis Air Force Base and Naval Air Station Fallon in Nevada, the McGregor Army Range in New Mexico, and Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely in my home state of Alaska. These withdrawals were for a period of 15 years and expire in 2001. I have a deep abiding recognition of the unique and critical role all of these military bases play in our national defense strategy and on the economies of the states within which they are located. However, I also understand that the issues surrounding the renewal of these withdrawals are complex and varied. Congress's ability to resolve these issues will ultimately define success or failure for this entire round of withdrawals. What we do here will have a lasting impact on these bases military mission, their local economies, and the environmental protection of the public lands. It is my firm belief that only through the Congressional hearing process can the concerns of all affected parties be recorded and factored into the renewal of these base withdrawals. I am committed to the prompt consideration of this legislation. However, taking into consideration the fact that these withdrawals do not expire until 2001, I believe it is prudent that we move this legislation at a pace which allows both the public and our colleagues the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way and in the proper forum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999. I am introducing this legislation on behalf of the Administration. At this point I am neither prepared to support nor object to any of the specific provisions contained within this legislative proposal. It is my intention however, to hold hearings on this important legislation and the withdrawal renewals contained within it. After those hearings have been held and we have had the benefit of input from the parties most effected by the withdrawals, I am prepared to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which makes such needed changes as are identified during the hearing process. This legislation renews the withdrawals contained within P.L. 99-606, enacted by Congress in 1986. This Congressional action withdrew 7.2 million acres of public land for use by the Department of Defense at six installations. The affected bases are the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in Arizona, Nellis Air Force Base and Naval Air Station Fallon in Nevada, the McGregor Army Range in New Mexico, and Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely in my home state of Alaska. These withdrawals were for a period of 15 years and expire in 2001. I have a deep abiding recognition of the unique and critical role all of these military bases play in our national defense strategy and on the economies of the states within which they are located. However, I also understand that the issues surrounding the renewal of these withdrawals are complex and varied. Congress's ability to resolve these issues will ultimately define success or failure for this entire round of withdrawals. What we do here will have a lasting impact on these bases military mission, their local economies, and the environmental protection of the public lands. It is my firm belief that only through the Congressional hearing process can the concerns of all affected parties be recorded and factored into the renewal of these base withdrawals. I am committed to the prompt consideration of this legislation. However, taking into consideration the fact that these withdrawals do not expire until 2001, I believe it is prudent that we move this legislation at a pace which allows both the public and our colleagues the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way and in the proper forum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has obtained a letter from the Congressional Budget Office containing an estimate of the costs of S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999, as reported from the Committee. In addition, pursuant to Public Law 104-4, the letter contains the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office regarding whether the S. 1287 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in that Act. I ask unanimous consent that the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record.

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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Indian Affairs. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, July 14, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Report of the General Accounting Office (GAO) on the Interior Department's Planned Trust Fund Reform. For further information, please contact the Committee on Indian Affairs at 202-224-2251.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to create a new regional office for the Environmental Protection Agency to be based in Alaska. I have been concerned for some time about the relationship between the federal government and my constituents. Alaska has always provided unique challenges for federal regulators. Its weather, remoteness, and the special problems caused by them have often resulted in a disconnect between federal regulators and my state. Currently, Alaska is part of Region 10 of the EPA based in Seattle. While it rains a lot in Seattle, the environment of Washington state is much more similar to Oregon and Idaho than Alaska. Alaska comprises 17% of America's total size and faces climactic extremes unheard of in the lower 48. For example, many people have heard that the unique geography of Los Angeles creates extreme atmospheric inversion conditions that contributes to its air pollution. However, I have been told that my home town of Fairbanks actually has a greater inversion problem than not only Los Angeles, but also anywhere else in the world except for the South Pole. I also believe that the cost issue is an important one since creation of a regional office would lower the tremendous travel and temporary duty costs faced by lower 48 based EPA staff who must fly back and forth to Alaska. Basing them in Alaska should significantly reduce these travel costs. I recognize that some may feel that the creation of a new regional office in Alaska is unwise. I would point out that I do not believe that the Seattle office has regularly handled Alaska issues poorly, but I do believe that these issues could be handled better if there was a regional office located in Alaska. Alaska faces wetland challenges like no other state. Our nation has seen a tremendous loss in wetlands in states such as California that has lost over 80% of its original wetlands. In comparison, Alaska has lost less than half of one percent of our nation's wetlands due to development even though we are a large producer of our nation's natural resources. Alaska is a state where wetlands banking is not an appropriate solution to address the loss of wetlands in California. Alaska's wetlands are also very different than those found in California or anywhere else in our nation. Much of Alaska's wetlands are frozen for all but a few months of the year. Even the Clean Air Act has a different application in Alaska. Low sulfur diesel in the lower 48 for on-road usage is not appropriate for my state where the percentage of diesel used for on-road uses is minuscule compared to that of the off-road uses. This situation is reversed in every other state. Fortunately, the EPA has seen fit to waive the low sulfur diesel requirement until a new lower national standard for both off and on-road diesel is in place during the next decade. However, we need to ensure that all federal regulations put into place reflect the realities of every state in our nation. Creation of a new Alaska based regional office of the EPA would be a firm step forward towards this goal. In conclusion, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill in order to make the EPA more efficient and responsive to some unique environmental challenges in my state. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator John Breaux in introducing The Nuclear Decommissioning Funds Clarification Act. This change in the tax law is necessary because the electricity industry is rapidly moving from a regulatory monopoly model to the competitive marketplace. In 1984, Congress enacted Code Section 468A which was designed to allow state public service commissions to authorize that future costs for decommissioning nuclear power plants could be charged by a utility to its customers to be dedicated to a nuclear decommissioning fund. Currently, utilities are permitted a deduction for contributions to their decommissioning funds. The amount that can be deducted is currently limited to the cost of service amount or the ruling amount. The cost of service amount is the amount of decommissioning costs included in the taxpayer's cost of service for ratemaking purposes. The ruling amount is the amount that the IRS determines to be necessary to provide for level funding of an amount equal to the taxpayer's nuclear decommissioning costs. Since Section 468A was adopted, the electricity industry landscape has been substantially transformed. Since 1992, more than 20 states have approved plans to introduce competition and all states are considering deregulation. The Energy Committee which I chair has also held several hearings on Federal deregulation proposals and it is my hope that a federal deregulation bill will be adopted in this Congress. Since deductible contributions made to a nuclear decommissioning fund are based on limitations reflected in cost-of-service ratemaking, companies operating in a competitive market can no longer deduct contributions to decommissioning funds. Our bill clarifies the deductibility of nuclear decommissioning costs in a market environment and codifies the definition of nuclear decommissioning costs that limit contributions. This legislation also clarifies a number of tax issues relating to decommissioning funds to ensure that nuclear utilities can operate effectively in this new competitive environment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to create a new regional office for the Environmental Protection Agency to be based in Alaska. I have been concerned for some time about the relationship between the federal government and my constituents. Alaska has always provided unique challenges for federal regulators. Its weather, remoteness, and the special problems caused by them have often resulted in a disconnect between federal regulators and my state. Currently, Alaska is part of Region 10 of the EPA based in Seattle. While it rains a lot in Seattle, the environment of Washington state is much more similar to Oregon and Idaho than Alaska. Alaska comprises 17% of America's total size and faces climactic extremes unheard of in the lower 48. For example, many people have heard that the unique geography of Los Angeles creates extreme atmospheric inversion conditions that contributes to its air pollution. However, I have been told that my home town of Fairbanks actually has a greater inversion problem than not only Los Angeles, but also anywhere else in the world except for the South Pole. I also believe that the cost issue is an important one since creation of a regional office would lower the tremendous travel and temporary duty costs faced by lower 48 based EPA staff who must fly back and forth to Alaska. Basing them in Alaska should significantly reduce these travel costs. I recognize that some may feel that the creation of a new regional office in Alaska is unwise. I would point out that I do not believe that the Seattle office has regularly handled Alaska issues poorly, but I do believe that these issues could be handled better if there was a regional office located in Alaska. Alaska faces wetland challenges like no other state. Our nation has seen a tremendous loss in wetlands in states such as California that has lost over 80% of its original wetlands. In comparison, Alaska has lost less than half of one percent of our nation's wetlands due to development even though we are a large producer of our nation's natural resources. Alaska is a state where wetlands banking is not an appropriate solution to address the loss of wetlands in California. Alaska's wetlands are also very different than those found in California or anywhere else in our nation. Much of Alaska's wetlands are frozen for all but a few months of the year. Even the Clean Air Act has a different application in Alaska. Low sulfur diesel in the lower 48 for on-road usage is not appropriate for my state where the percentage of diesel used for on-road uses is minuscule compared to that of the off-road uses. This situation is reversed in every other state. Fortunately, the EPA has seen fit to waive the low sulfur diesel requirement until a new lower national standard for both off and on-road diesel is in place during the next decade. However, we need to ensure that all federal regulations put into place reflect the realities of every state in our nation. Creation of a new Alaska based regional office of the EPA would be a firm step forward towards this goal. In conclusion, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill in order to make the EPA more efficient and responsive to some unique environmental challenges in my state. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator John Breaux in introducing The Nuclear Decommissioning Funds Clarification Act. This change in the tax law is necessary because the electricity industry is rapidly moving from a regulatory monopoly model to the competitive marketplace. In 1984, Congress enacted Code Section 468A which was designed to allow state public service commissions to authorize that future costs for decommissioning nuclear power plants could be charged by a utility to its customers to be dedicated to a nuclear decommissioning fund. Currently, utilities are permitted a deduction for contributions to their decommissioning funds. The amount that can be deducted is currently limited to the cost of service amount or the ruling amount. The cost of service amount is the amount of decommissioning costs included in the taxpayer's cost of service for ratemaking purposes. The ruling amount is the amount that the IRS determines to be necessary to provide for level funding of an amount equal to the taxpayer's nuclear decommissioning costs. Since Section 468A was adopted, the electricity industry landscape has been substantially transformed. Since 1992, more than 20 states have approved plans to introduce competition and all states are considering deregulation. The Energy Committee which I chair has also held several hearings on Federal deregulation proposals and it is my hope that a federal deregulation bill will be adopted in this Congress. Since deductible contributions made to a nuclear decommissioning fund are based on limitations reflected in cost-of-service ratemaking, companies operating in a competitive market can no longer deduct contributions to decommissioning funds. Our bill clarifies the deductibility of nuclear decommissioning costs in a market environment and codifies the definition of nuclear decommissioning costs that limit contributions. This legislation also clarifies a number of tax issues relating to decommissioning funds to ensure that nuclear utilities can operate effectively in this new competitive environment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate I would like to announce that S. 1273, the Federal Power Act Amendments of 1999; and S. 1284, the Electric Consumer Choice Act have been added to the hearing to be held before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday, June 29 at 9:30 a.m. I would also like to announce that the hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources previously scheduled for July 1, 1999 has been postponed until July 15, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. in SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. The Committee will receive testimony on S. 161, the Power Marketing Administration Reform Act of 1999; S. 282, the Transition to Competition in the Electric Industry Act; S. 516, the Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999; S. 1047, the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act; S. 1273, the Federal Power Act Amendments of 1999; and S. 1284, the Electric Consumer Choice Act. For additional information you may write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. Mr. President, I also announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 27, 1999, 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 S. 1052, to implement further the Act (Public Law 94-241) approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, and for other purposes. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should contact the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C. For further information, please call James Beirne, Deputy Chief Counsel at (202) 224-2564, or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on June 17, I introduced bipartisan legislation (1240) providing capital gains for the forest products industry and lifting the existing cap on the reforestation tax credit and amortization provisions of the tax Code. Unfortunately, because of a clerical error, the section of the bill that lifted the cap on the tax credit and the amortization provisions of the Code was inadvertently omitted from the bill. Today I am reintroducing the bill as it was originally intended to be drafted. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on June 17, I introduced bipartisan legislation (1240) providing capital gains for the forest products industry and lifting the existing cap on the reforestation tax credit and amortization provisions of the tax Code. Unfortunately, because of a clerical error, the section of the bill that lifted the cap on the tax credit and the amortization provisions of the Code was inadvertently omitted from the bill. Today I am reintroducing the bill as it was originally intended to be drafted. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the steel quota bill, H.R. 975. Simply put, steel quotas are wrong. The protectionist measures proposed in this legislation represent a failed trade policy that the United States abandoned long ago. For the last 50 years, the United States has been the world's leading advocate of open markets. At the same time, we have grown to be the strongest and most productive economy on earth. Now is not the time for this government to reverse an economic policy that has served it so well. Steel quotas are wrong for the world's economy, and by definition America's economy. In this era of global business, open markets are essential to international prosperity. In the midst of the Asian economic crisis, American leadership in keeping markets open has prevented a global financial meltdown. The U.S. and its allies have spent years developing an international trading system. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was not exaggerating last week when he warned that the steel quota bill could set off a wave of market access restrictions that would undermine this system and threaten the world's financial health. Steel quotas are also wrong for the American economy. There is no question that open markets present some difficult challenges for American companies. They lead to stiffer competition and force greater efficiency. But open markets also mean greater opportunities. As a nation, we are succeeding. The United States is the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth. We have the most skilled workforce, the most productive factories and the most innovative thinkers anywhere in the world. Our commitment to open markets has played a key role in this success. In my home state of Alaska, for example, international trade is a vital part of the economy. Last year, Alaskan companies exported more than 750 million dollars worth of merchandise to foreign countries. And that was an off year in my state because of the Asian flue--in most years, our merchandise exports total nearly 1 billion dollars. For many reasons, the quota bill will do more harm to the American economy than good. First, the steel quota bill will provoke foreign countries to retaliate against our exports. And the United States will be in no position to complain. The international trading system--the one that we played a leading role in creating--authorizes countries to retaliate against those who erect trade barriers such as quotas. This retaliation will be devastating to our farmers and factory workers. It will cost many more American jobs than it will save. As American companies lose sales abroad, they will be forced to cut jobs and close doors at home. Second, the quota bill will deny American manufacturers the steel they need to make their products. Domestic steel companies are only able to meet about 75 percent of the demand for steel in this country. As a result, steel quotas could create dangerous steel shortages-- shortages that hurt the oil industry in Alaska. In addition, the quota bill is completely insensitive to the types of steel that American companies need. There are many special types of steel that simply are not made in the U.S. Quotas could completely deny American companies access to those special types of steel, forcing them to reduce the quality of their products or move their production overseas. Finally, by making a critical raw material more expensive, steel quotas will put many of our products at a world market disadvantage. Because American manufacturers will be forced to pay more for steel than their foreign competitors, their products will be more expensive. Again, the steel quota bill will result in lost sales abroad and lost jobs at home. For all of these reasons, we must not pass the steel quota bill. It is wrong for the United States and wrong for the world's economy. As Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan recently warned, it will indeed be a great tragedy if we pass this legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. My only frustration, I share with the leader, is that the assumption today was that we were going to have some votes. As a consequence, I made my plans accordingly for a 2 o'clock airplane. I could have gotten a 10:30 airplane. After 2 o'clock, there are no more airplanes. I share the frustration of the leader who, obviously, is today accommodating a number of Senators who want to get out of here early, even though the leader said today we are going to vote in the morning at least. We did vote in the morning. It works both ways, Mr. President. When the leader says so, the consistency of that statement, I think, should be followed through, if I can make an appropriate suggestion.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may interrupt for a moment on a matter of procedure, I recognize the difficulty the leader has in trying to orchestrate things in the body. I know he is working very diligently to try to come up with time agreements and the possibility of stacking votes and holding them over until Monday. I remember that former Senator Jake Garn sort of had an affinity for a family-friendly process, and I want to commend the leadership for trying to follow that. I want to point out that I happen, by coincidence, to live very far away. For me to make a Monday vote, I have to leave Sunday night and fly all night to get here. If I leave on the very first flight from Fairbanks, AK, on Monday and leave at 8 o'clock, I get arrive in Washington in the evening. Ordinarily, I don't go back to my State on a weekend; I stay here. But Father's Day and Mother's Day are fairly important, so I intend to go to Alaska today. Unfortunately, I will miss the stacked votes that are proposed on Monday. I was inclined to object to the unanimous-consent agreement, but in the spirit of cordiality, which I have pretty much maintained around here in the last 19 years, I will defer to the leadership. I wanted to explain this uniqueness to those who live in Chicago or for those who can take the train next door. I wish I could. It is a little different set of circumstances. I have made my concerns known. As we plan events, I think we should recognize there are a couple of special days, and Father's Day is one of them. I have 11 grandchildren who are coming, so sayonara.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have observed that as well. I thank my friend from Texas.