Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today a number of my colleagues introduced legislation to lock up America's best chance to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This legislation is bad policy Mr. President and should be vigorously opposed. increasing dependence on foreign oil Many times on the floor of the Senate my colleagues have heard me talk about the United State's increasing dependence on foreign oil. I have made the point that we are importing too much of our oil from oversees while watching our domestic level of production decrease by the day. Consider the following: In 1994, domestic oil production dropped to 6.6 million barrels a day--the lowest annual level since 1954; North slope oil fields--which provide 25 percent of our domestic production--has been in decline since 1988. At the same time, national demand has steadily increased more than 17.7 million barrels per day--the highest level since the mid-1970's Today the U.S. imports close to 56 percent of its oil. Just how significant is a 56 percent dependence on foreign oil--lets look at it: In 1973, the year of the Arab oil embargo--the year of the 2-hour wait at the gas lines--the United States was 36 percent dependent on foreign oil In 1991, the year of Desert Storm, the United States was 46 percent dependent on foreign oil Now we are 54 percent dependent. And if we don't act soon there is no way to stop our increasing dependence on imported oil--a dependence our own Government says could be 67 percent by 2010. In the meantime countries such as Algeria, Iraq, Libya, and Nigeria are all planning to increase their production levels. Locking up ANWR in wilderness and increasing our dependence on foreign oil is bad policy. anwr reserve estimates are the highest ever In 1998 the Department of the Interior published the results of over 3 years of research on the oil and gas potential of the 1002 area of ANWR. The 1998 estimates is the highest estimate ever published regarding the 1002 area estimating a mean resource for the coastal plain of 7.7 billion barrels of produceable oil. The new estimates are significantly higher than those produced by the Department of the Interior in 1987 which led to their recommendation to Congress to open the 1.5 million-acre area to responsible oil and gas leasing, exploration, and production. technology in the arctic allows for safe development The sponsors of the legislation do not recognize the incredible advances in development technologies on the North Slope. This technology has reduced the size of the impact from development by more than 60 percent and is literally the best in the world. alaskans and native people of alaska overwhelmingly support Virtually all of Alaska's elected officials--both Republicans and Democrats support the careful development of this area. The overwhelming majority of the Native people of Alaska support development of this area and strongly oppose wilderness designation, including the people who live in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain. Recently the mayor of the North Slope Borough, Ben Nageak, who was born in the heart of the coastal plain at Kaktovik, wrote a letter to the President opposing wilderness designation. The oil industry has been a good friend to the environment here while providing us with money and jobs so that we could be more productive members of American society. It (wilderness designation) will cripple our ability to wean ourselves away from the Federal Government's subsidies and destroy our attempts at self reliance. jobs and revenue It is estimated between 250,000 and 750,000 jobs nationwide will be created through safe exploration and development. Billions of dollars of Federal revenues would be generated by safe exploration and development. As a nation dependent on energy for our economic survival we have to find and produce energy here at home. We must stop driving our energy producing industries and our energy jobs overseas. According to the Department of Energy, U.S. dependence on foreign oil is expected to rise to 70 percent by the year 2000. How much more likely are we to put our children and grand children in hams way on foreign oil to protect our domestic interests when we import 70 percent of our oil? How can elected officials of this country--Members of this body-- think that it is better policy to rely on oil from the likes of Saddam Hussein for U.S. energy security that it is to develop and produce our own?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss certain aspects of our military campaign in Kosovo that deeply trouble me. We are now into the fourth week of the NATO bombing campaign, and so far things are far worse for the Albanian Kosovars who have been systematically uprooted from their homes and either killed or driven into exile in neighboring countries. Many of their homes have been burned to the ground. Whole villages have been destroyed, with the result that hundreds of thousands of people have become refugees with no worldly possessions except what they could carry on their backs. On March 23, on the eve of NATO's bombing campaign, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated that there was a specific purpose, and that was to: Deter Slobodan Milosevic from continuing on this rampage and going in and torching--having his soldiers and special police torch the villages. So it is designed to deter that, and also to damage his capability to do that. Well, less than 4 weeks later, it is clear that Secretary Albright and the Administration seem to have misjudged Milosevic. NATO bombing has in no way deterred the torching and ethnic cleansing. It has, in fact, intensified since the bombing began. There can be no doubt that if, as Secretary Albright stated, our goal was to deter the rampage against the ethnic Albanians, our policy has failed. When it became apparent to the Administration that its policy of protecting the Albanian Kosovars had failed, the Administration in early April shifted the message and claimed that the bombing was designed to ``degrade'' Serbia's military capacity. However, we appear to be doing this indirectly in that our bombs and cruise missiles have been targeting infrastructure, specifically bridges, oil refineries, rail lines, and telecommunications, rather than hitting tanks, heavy guns and, of course, the troops. Despite the massive air campaign, the Serbs' ability to wage war on Kosovo continues unabated. Fuel for the Serbian war machine flows through Montenegro, whose ports are filled with tankers. Although we have sought to blockade the ports, our allies, primarily the French, have blocked that effort for fear of widening the conflict. What greatly concerns me, however, is that while the Serbian war machine continues to roll south unimpeded, it is the American military that has been substantially degraded by the shortsighted policies of the Clinton administration. When NATO bombing began, the military fired between 30 and 50 air- launched cruise missiles targeted primarily against Serbian air defenses. The air-launched cruise missiles are a critical element in our military because they can be fired hundreds of miles away from heavily guarded targets without directly risking pilots and other air personnel. In addition, since they rely on global positioning satellites for navigation, they can hit their targets in both good and bad weather. Unfortunately, there is a crucial shortage of cruise missiles because the Administration has had a propensity to use them for some dubious purposes in the past. In the short 4-day bombing that occurred in Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, the United States used 90 air-launched cruise missiles. We fired an additional barrage of cruise missiles against Sudan and Afghanistan last summer. In both instances, it is not clear that we achieved any policy objectives beyond using up a large percentage of our arsenal of cruise missiles. Now, what is truly astonishing is that today the United States is not, and I emphasize not, producing a single cruise missile. There is not a single production line operating that is manufacturing or refitting cruise missiles to replace the missiles in our arsenal. Today there are only 90 to 100--that's right--90 to 100 air-launched cruise missiles in our inventory. They apparently won't be replaced any time soon. Because of operations in Kosovo, the Office of Management and Budget has requested $51 million to convert 92 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles into conventional cruise missiles. That is what it cost--almost a half million dollars each for that conversion. However, the first converted cruise missile would not be available for at least 7 months, by November at the earliest. If the production line for new air-launched cruise missiles was reopened at Boeing, it would take several million dollars of commitment and funding simply to restart it. Even if that happened, the line would not even begin producing new missiles for more than a year. Why have the cruise missile production lines closed? The answer appears to be that a new generation of air-launched cruise missiles will be added to the Air Force's inventory, and the military hence decided it no longer needed to add to its current inventory. However, the new generation of missiles will not be available before 2001 or 2002 at the earliest. Given President Clinton's propensity to fire off cruise missiles apparently at whim, and given Secretary Albright's blustery rhetoric, we wonder if anyone in the Administration in recent years gave consideration in advance to reopening the closed production lines to allow us to rebuild our inventory before we began the air campaign in Yugoslavia. Or did they believe that diplomatic bluster from the State Department would convince adversaries that military confrontations would not happen until our new generation cruise missiles were on line in 3 to 4 years? A similar, but less dangerous, scenario exists with the Navy cruise missile, the Tomahawk. During the past 10 years, we have had approximately 2,500 Tomahawks in our inventory. That number is down considerably--down to about 2,000 since we used 330 during the 4-day bombing in Operation Desert Fox and 150 by the Navy so far in Kosovo. As in the case with the Air Force, the Tomahawk production line has also been shut down because a new generation of missiles will be produced. However, again that missile production will not be available before the year 2003. By one estimate, the cost of restarting the Tomahawk production line would be $40 million, and it would take 2\1/2\ years before a missile, a single missile, would come off that line. Clearly, this is not an option. Although the Navy is seeking $113 million to remanufacture 324 older model Tomahawks, those will not be available in the foreseeable future. Mr. President, there are very strong indications that if nothing changes, the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia could last through the summer. Quite frankly, I do not believe that anyone in the Administration really knows how long this campaign is going to continue. But so long as the air campaign continues, the shortage of cruise missiles means that it is our pilots who will have to take greater risks and they will be subjected to those risks. It is our pilots who will have to hit the facilities that cruise missiles could have hit. They will have to deal with the surface-to-air missiles and ground fire that have a minimal impact on the unmanned cruise missiles. They will have to deal with the vagaries of the weather, something that does not affect the capabilities of our cruise missiles. Moreover, we have many responsibilities and vital interests in other areas throughout the world. What would happen if Saddam Hussein began posing threats to Kuwait again? What would happen with regard to threats that we have seen regularly coming from North Korea? A recent article in the Washington Post quoted Russian analysts who have been interviewed from time to time and have picked up sensitive material advising us of the North Korean officials and their continued threat. North Korean officials have indicated that the NATO bombing has had a sufficient impact on their Government that could lead to further upgrades of its missile and military capability. Clearly, the severe shortage of cruise missiles diminishes some of our military options and surely makes the world a more dangerous place. But the shortage of cruise missiles also reflects on the shortsightedness and overcommitments made by the Administration over the last few years. At the same time that this Administration was committing us to military interventions of some dubious purposes, they have been cutting military spending. They have shortchanged our military readiness because they have been unwilling to sacrifice domestic spending and provide our troops with the necessary means to carry out our military objectives, and particularly to have an adequate inventory. Now that we are engaged in this very serious mission in Kosovo, the shortfalls in our military spending are becoming dangerously obvious. I believe it is incumbent on the Administration and Congress to realistically assess the state of our military readiness and to provide the appropriate funds to maintain that we, indeed, have a technological support base for our troops and adequate inventories of cruise missiles and other military armaments. At the same time, we need to have a real debate about the goals in this conflict in Yugoslavia and our strategy to achieve those goals. I fear the Administration completely miscalculated when it launched the air campaign. It is my view that they thought the air campaign would be a short campaign. I believe they assumed that the Serbs would immediately retreat when the bombs began to descend and that the Serbs would passively accept Secretary Albright's demand that NATO troops be positioned in Kosovo. That has not happened. And now the question is, What is next? Why are we to assume that if bombing had not worked in this last 4 weeks, that another 4 weeks or another 4 months of bombing will change anything on the ground? History suggests that bombing by itself tends to steel the will of the people who are under assault. Why would the Serbian people react any differently than the people of London, who endured far harsher bombings by the Nazis and still never gave in? Mr. President, it has been said that when it comes to the Balkans, there are no good options. What is clear to me is that even if the refugees would somehow be allowed to return to Kosovo, a very large occupation force on the ground, including Americans, would be needed to maintain any semblance of peace, and that force would be required to stay not for months but for years, and perhaps decades. This is not an outcome I can support. We were told by the President that we were only going to be in Bosnia for 1 year. Four years later, we are still there and there is little sign that Bosnian peace can survive without a military presence to maintain that peace. I think it was shortsighted of the Administration to allow cruise missile production to end and to initiate a conflict without an adequate inventory. That same shortsightedness marks our foreign policy. And the result today is that we are engaged in a conflict, with NATO's credibility on the line. I believe the only solution to the crisis in Kosovo is to re-engage the Serbs in diplomatic negotiations. Most importantly, we need to recognize that the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans have a long history and the people living there may never live in peace so long as the borders are drawn as they are today. Unfortunate as this may be, it may ultimately become necessary to redraw some of those borders in the Balkans to reflect political and ethnic realities. Mr. President, I came across an article written by David Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg writes the History Lesson column for Slate and is a Richard Hofstadter fellow in American history at Columbia University. This particular article poses the question, What solution does history dictate for Kosovo? I thought it an excellent treaty on the history and background. Knowing the Presiding Officer's familiarity with this particular subject, I will read this article into the Record at this time. Mr. Greenberg writes: Ever since the United States began contemplating doing something about war and ethnic cleansing in the collapsing state of Yugoslavia in 1991, all sides have invoked history as a guide to action. Those who opposed involvement in Bosnia in the early '90s--and who doubt that NATO can bring peace to Kosovo today--argue that the long record of intractable ethnic tension among the Balkan peoples means we should stay out. Any settlement, they say, is doomed to be temporary. Robert Kaplan's book ``Balkan Ghosts,'' which advances this thesis regarding Bosnia, reportedly convinced President Clinton to steer clear of military action there for a time. Interventionists also invoke history. They note the longstanding claim of ethnic Albanians to the territory of Kosovo dating back to 1200 B.C., when the Albanians' supposed ancestors, the Illyrians, settled there. This ancient history forms the basis of demands for self-determination on the part of the long-suffering Albanian Kosovars. But the Serbs, too, stake a historical claim. Their Slavic forebears migrated to Kosovo around A.D. 500, and they contend that Serbs have lived there ever since. In fact, each of these assertions is subject to qualification, as is made clear in Noel Malcolm's masterly (but misnamed) ``Kosovo: A Short History'' (my main source along with Hugh Poulton's ``The Balkans: Minorities and States in Conflict''). The tie of today's Albanian Kosovars to the ancient Illyrians is fairly attenuated. And while Slavs did move into the area around 500, when the Bulgarian Empire conquered the Balkans, the Serbs didn't gain control of Kosovo until the 12th century, when a dynasty of their leaders known as the Nemanjids invaded it after a period of Byzantine rule. For two centuries the Nemanjids basked in their Balkan kingdom. Serb nationalists today are fond of noting that in 1389 it was in Kosovo that the Serbian Prince Lazar and his armies made their last stand against the invading Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Kosovo. They're less likely to note that the Albanians of Kosovo fought alongside them. (Explicit references to the Albanian people as opposed to the Illyrians begin to appear around the 11th century.) During Turkey's 500-year rule, most of Kosovo's Albanians-- and Albania's Albanians, also subjects of the Ottoman Empire--converted to Islam. The Serbs remained Orthodox Christians. That may be one reason that the Serbs sought independence first. In 1804 they rose up and in 1828 broke free. Kosovo, however, remained largely content under Turkish rule. Serbs, believing that Kosovo still rightfully belonged to them, did briefly conquer it in 1877 when, along with Russia, the new Serbian state made war on Turkey. But under the Russian-Ottoman armistice a year later, Serbia was forced to withdraw. At this point, the Albanians--of both Kosovo and Albania proper--commenced their so-called ``national awakening.'' A group called the League of Prizren, named for the Kosovo town where it met, lobbied for autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. A generation later, this movement flowered into insurrection, as Albanians throughout the western pocket of the Balkans revolted. Albania secured statehood in 1912, but before the status of Kosovo could be resolved, the entire region was rocked, in quick succession by the First Balkan War (1912), the Second Balkan War (1913) and, for good measure, World War

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair, and I wish my friend a pleasant afternoon.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that morning business is to conclude at 2 o'clock. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. I believe I have 20 minutes reserved; is that correct?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor students from my home State of Alaska who have garnered a host of honors recently--all very well deserved. As an avid outdoorsman and hunter I have more than passing skill with a rifle, but I am in awe at the accomplishments of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Rifle Team. On Friday, March 12 the team won the NCAA national title in team rifle competition during the annual championships held at Norwich University in Northfield, VT. While the Nanooks won the team Rifle Championships, the students had several other firsts. Ms. Kelly Mansfield, a junior at the University, became the first person ever to win both the small-bore and individual titles in the same year. And the Nanooks set a record with eight team members earning All-American status, record number of All-Americans in rifle competition from a single University. Of the team's eight All- Americans six earned honors in both the small-bore and air rifle disciplines, another record. Besides Ms. Mansfield, I would like to congratulate the other seven All-Americans who competed with such distinction during the national collegiate championships. Earning praise are sophomore Dan Jordan, freshman Johan Lindberg and sophomore Melissa Mulloy, all double All- Americans first team in both events. Also earning praise are junior Joacim Trybom, who earned first-team, small-bore and second team air rifle honors; Grant Mecozzi, who earned second-team honors in both categories; and Amber Darland, who made the second team in small-bore. I also would like to mention senior Kelly Bushong, who won honorable mention on the small-bore squad. All of the students from the University's Fairbanks campus performed wonderfully, an obvious reflection on their coach, Randy Pitney, who has done a sensational job of teaching and preparing his team this year. All Alaskans wish to offer our praise and our thanks for the team's hard work and dedication. Excellence in marksmanship takes skill and discipline. It also takes desire--the desire to practice, the desire to be the best. That was particularly hard this past January in Fairbanks when the temperature was often -50 degrees F. I can't say enough for the accomplishments of these young women and men. Everyone in Alaska is very proud of the Nanooks' achievements during the 1998-99 season. Again, congratulations on a great year.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 21, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on whether the United States has the natural gas supply and infrastructure necessary to meet projected demand. Because of the limited time available, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Dan Kish at (202) 224-8276. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that a closed hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This hearing is titled: ``Damage to the National Security from Chinese Espionage at DOE Nuclear Weapons Laboratories.'' The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 14, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in room 219 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Those who wish further information may write 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, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 501, a bill to address resource management issues in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska; S. 698, a bill to review the suitability and feasibility of recovering costs of high altitude rescues at Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska, and for other purposes; S. 711, to allow for the investment of joint Federal and State funds from the civil settlement of damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and for other purposes; and two bills I will be introducing today, a bill to improve Native hiring and contracting by the Federal Government within the State of Alaska, and for other purposes; and bill to provide for the continuation of higher education through the conveyance of certain lands in the State of Alaska to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 15, 1999 at 9:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Shawn Taylor of the committee staff at (202) 224-6969. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. This legislation puts the ``Public'' back into public land management and the ``Environment'' back into environmental protection. Passage of this Act will insure that all the gains we have made over the past quarter century in creating an open participatory government which affords strong environmental protection for our public lands are protected. For those of you who thought those battles were fought and ``won'' with the passage of National Environmental Protection Act in 1969, the Federal Land Policy Management Act in 1976, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976, I have bad news. There is one last battle to be fought. Standing in this very Chamber on January 30, 1975, Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson spoke to the passion Americans feel for their public lands. He said: The public lands of the United States have always provided the arena in which we American's have struggled to fulfill our dreams. Even today dreams of wealth, adventure, and escape are still being acted out on these far flung lands. These lands and the dreams--fulfilled and unfulfilled--which they foster are a part of our national destiny. They belong to all Americans. Amazingly, there exists today ``legal'' authorities by which the President, without public process or Congressional approval and without any environmental review, can create vast special management units. Special management units which can affect how millions of acres of our public lands are managed, what people can do on these lands, and what the future will be for surrounding communities. This is a powerful trust to bestow upon anyone--even a President. On September 12, 1996, the good people of Utah woke up to find themselves the most recent recipient of a philosophy that says: ``Trust us we're from the federal government, and we know what's best for you''. On that day, standing in the State of Arizona, the President invoked the 1906 Antiquities Act to create a 1.7 million acre Nation Monument in Southern Utah. By using this antiquated law the President was able to avoid this nation's environmental laws and ignore public participation laws. With one swipe of the pen, every shred of public input and environmental law promulgated in this country over the past quarter of a century was shoved into the trash heap of political expediency. What happened in Utah is but the latest example of a small cadre of Administration officials deciding for all Americans how our public lands should be used. It is a classic example of a backroom deal, catering to special interests at the expense of the public. It is by no means the only one. As a Senator from Alaska, I have a great deal of personal experience in this area. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter used this law to create ``17'' National Monuments in Alaska covering more than 55 millions acres of land. This was followed in short order by this Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus who withdrew an additional 50 million acres. All this land was withdrawn from multiple uses without any input from the people of Alaska, the public, or the Congress of the United States. All this occurred while Congress was considering legislation affecting these lands, while Congress was conducting workshops throughout Alaska and holding hearings in Washington, DC to involve the public. With over 100 million acres of withdrawn land held over Alaska's head like the sword of Damocles, we were forced to cut the best deal we could. Twenty years later the people of my state are still struggling to cope with the weight of these decisions. President Carter cut his deal for his special interests to avoid the public debate on legislation, just as President Clinton did with the Grand Staircase/ Escalante. I would not be here this afternoon if the public, and Congress were not systematically being denied a voice in the creation of National Monuments. I would not be here if environmental procedures were being followed. But the people of this nation are being denied the opportunity to speak, Congress is being denied its opportunity to participate, and environmental procedure are being ignored. The only voice we hear is that of the President. Without bothering to ask what we thought about it, he told the citizens of Utah and the rest of the country that he knew better than they what was best for them. It has been a long time since anyone has had the right to make those kinds of unilateral public land use decisions for the American public. Since passage of the Forest Service Organic Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976 we have had a rock hard system of law on how public land use decisions are to be made. Embodied within these laws are public participation. Agencies propose an action, they present that action to the public, the public debates the issue, bad decisions can be appealed, the courts resolve disputes, and finally the management unit is created. Where was this public participation in the special use designation of 1.7 million acres of federal land in southern Utah? Since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 activities which effect the environment are subject to strict environmental reviews. Does anyone believe there is no environmental threat posed by the creation of a national monument? The economic and social consequences of this decision will have enormous and irrevocable impacts not only on the land immediately affected, but on surrounding lands and communities. All these effects on the human environment would have been evaluated under the land management statutes and the environmental procedural review. Where is the NEPA compliance documentation associated with this action? The Constitutions explicitly provides that ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'' The creation of specialized public use designations such as National Parks and Wilderness Areas are debated within the Halls of Congress. These Debates provide for the financial and legal responsibilities which come with the creation of special management units. Where are the proceedings from those debates? They simply do not exist because, in the heat of political expediency, the Administration determined that public process, environmental analyses, and Congressional deliberations were a waste of time. Mr. President, either you believe in public process or you do not, you can't have it both ways. We can no longer trust the Administration to involve the public in major land use decisions and we can no longer tolerate the blanket evasion of the laws designed to protect our natural resources. The time has come for Congress to reassert its Constitutional responsibility under Article IV. The legislation which Senator Craig and I offer today will require that any future designations of National Monuments to follow the public participation principals laid down in law over the past 25 years. No poetic images, no flowery words, no smoke and mirrors, no special coverage on Good Morning America, just good old fashion public land management process. Before these special land management units can be created, our legislation will require that agencies gather and analyze resource data affected by these land use decisions; that full public participation in the designation of the units takes place (with all appeal rights protected); that there be compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; and that Congress review and approve final designation. No longer will an administration be able to side-step public participation and environmental reviews to further its political agenda and cater to special interest. Nobody--not even the President--should be above the law. The National Monument Participation Act will make all future land use decisions a joint responsibility of the public through the Congress, that they elect. This legislation reasserts the Constitutional role of the Congress in public land decisions. I do not question the need for National Monuments. If the national benefit can be demonstrated, then by all means a national monument should be created. But, if they are to serve the common good, they must be created under the same system of land management law that has managed the use of the public domain for the past 25 years and pursuant to the document that has governed this Nation for the past 225 years. There has always been a sacred bond between the American people and the lands they hold in common ownership. No one-regardless of high station or political influence--has the right to impose his will over the means by which the destiny of those land is decided. This legislation re-establishes that bond.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 to provide Indian Tribal Trust fund beneficiaries the option of having their trust funds managed according to their wishes, which could add measurably to the value of their trust funds. For individual Indian trust fund beneficiaries, the legislation would allow them to earn greater returns through government-regulated trust departments than allowed by current law. This bill is an outgrowth of a joint hearing held March 3rd of this year by the Senate Committees on Indian Affairs and Energy & Natural Resources to investigate the Department of Interior's efforts to reform the trust management systems for individual Indians and Indian Tribes. The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the U.S. government, acts as the trustee for some 1,500 tribal trust funds for 338 Indian tribes with assets of $2.6 billion. He performs a similar service for 300,000 individual Indian accounts totaling some $500 million. For well over 100 years, these accounts have been in severe disarray, and in my mind, recent reform efforts under the Indian Trust Fund Management Act show few tangible signs of improvement. Funds are unaccounted for, paperwork is missing, and Indians are uncertain about the accuracy of the amounts reported in their trust accounts. Recent newspaper reports tell of an ongoing inability or unwillingness on the part of the Departments of the Interior and Treasury to comply with requests from the U.S. District Court to produce documents relating to a small number of trust accounts. The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, has shown an unflagging commitment to ensure that the Indian trust fund debacle is cleaned up and put upon a sound footing for the Indian beneficiaries whose only sin has been to trust the word of the Federal Government. While I look forward to working with Chairman Campbell on his efforts to compel the Department of the Interior to institute the reforms necessary to come to grips with the ongoing problems of the Indian trust fund management, this bill is not designed to tackle that daunting task. This will would grant Indian Tribes the option of having their funds treated the same way trust beneficiaries' funds are treated by prudent bank trust departments throughout this nation. Presently, federal law prohibits the Office of Trust Management from investing Indian trust funds in anything other than government-guaranteed instruments. This severely limits the rate of return Indians receive, to the point that they receive the lowest rate of return of any trust beneficiaries in the country. Virtually all other trust funds in the country are managed under the ``prudent investor'' rule, which, when coupled with government regulation of trust departments, ensures that trust funds are managed conservatively but wisely for the long term best interests of the trust beneficiary. The express prohibition against investment of Indian trust funds in all but government-guaranteed instruments has a dual effect on America's first--and poorest--residents. First, it restricts the growth of their trust funds. Second, it means that Indian trust funds will not be available for investment in Indian Country. Under my proposal, the Secretary of the Interior, working with the Comptroller of the Currency, would contract with qualified financial institutions that are regulated by a federal bank regulatory agency for the investment of funds managed for Indian Tribes and individuals. Tribes would still have the option of keeping their money in government-guaranteed low-yield instruments if they so choose. Those funds invested with government-regulated trust institutions would be managed according to the prudent investor rules governing all other trusts throughout the country. The U.S. government would still act as the guarantor of those funds through its regulatory and enforcement mechanisms. Because stated balances of trust funds may not be accurate due to historical mismanagement, the legislation is intended to ensure that if Indian trust funds are managed by private financial institutions, possible claims against the government for accurate balances are not extinguished. Moreover, the Secretary would be directed, in the selection of a qualified financial institution, to comply with the Buy-Indian Act (25 U.S.C. 47). This would mean that if qualified Indian-owned financial institutions were properly regulated and certified, investment of Indian trust funds could act as investment capital for expanding economic opportunities in Indian country. It is my hope that through the successful implementation of this legislation, we will see Indian people finally getting a fair return on their dollars, which might very well be generated from new enterprises via investments of their own monies. The American dream should not be allowed to be continued to be denied to the First Americans. Mr. President, the Secretary of the Interior, is not an investment banker. There are a variety of things that the federal government does not do well, and the management of trust funds is one of them. We have financial institutions that are regulated and who have the experience of managing large trust funds. We have a large body of law governing the fiduciary responsibility of trustees. It is long past time for the Secretary to focus on the accounting of receipts and let those who know something about investments handle the actual management of these trust funds. The present situation simply perpetuates the cycle of dependence for too many tribes and denies them the same reasonable expectation of return that all non-Indian trust beneficiaries have a right to expect. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, trails are one of America's most popular recreational resources. Millions of Americans hike, ski, jog, bike, ride horses, drive snow machines and all-terrain vehicles, observe nature, commute, and relax on trails throughout the country. A variety of trails are provided nationwide, including urban bike paths, bridle paths, community green ways, historic trails, motorized trails, and long distance hiking trails. The American Discovery Trail, or ADT, will be established by this legislation. The ADT is being proposed as a continuous, coast to coast trail to link the nation's principal north-south trails and east-west historic trails with shorter local and regional trails into a nationwide network. By establishing a system of Discovery Trails, this new category will recognize that using and enjoying trails close to home is equally as important as traversing remote wilderness trails. Long-distance trails are used mostly by people living close to the trail and by week- end'ers. Backpacking excursions are normally a few days to a couple of weeks. For example, of the estimated four million users of the Appalachian Trail each year, only about 100 to 150 walk the entire trail annually. This will be true of the American Discovery Trail as well, especially because of it proximity to urban locations throughout the country. The ADT, the first of the Discovery Trails, will connect six of the national scenic trails, 10 of the national historic trails, 23 of the national recreational trails and hundreds of other local and regional trails. Until now, the element that has been missing in order to create a national system of ``connected'' trails is that the existing trails for the most part are not connected. The ADT is about access. The trail will connect people to large cities, small towns and urban areas and to mountains, forest, desert and natural areas by incorporating local, regional and national trails together. What makes the ADT so exciting is the way it has already brought people together. More than 100 organizations along the trail's 6,000 miles support the effort. Each state the trail passes through already has a volunteer coordinator who leads an active ADT committee. This strong grassroots effort, along with financial support from Backpacker magazine, Eco USA, The Coleman Company and others have helped take the ADT from dream to reality. Only one more very important step on the trail needs to be taken. Congress needs to authorize the trail as part of our National Trails System. The American Discovery Trail begins (or ends) with your two feet in the Pacific Ocean at Point Reyes National Seashore, just north of San Francisco. Next are Berkeley and Sacramento before the climb to the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail and Lake Tahoe, in the middle of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Nevada will offer Historic Virginia City, home of the Comstock Lode, the Pony Express National Historic Trail, Great Basin National Park with Lehman Caves and Wheeler Peak. Utah will provide National Forests and Parks along with spectacular red rock country, until you get to Colorado and Colorado National Monument and its 20,445 acres of sandstone monoliths and canyons. Then there's Grand Mesa over Scofield Pass, and Crested Butte, in the heart of ski country as you follow the Colorado and Continental Divide Trails into Evergreen. At Denver the ADT divides and becomes the Northern and Southern Midwest routes. The Northern Midwest Route winds through Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The Southern Midwest Route leaves Colorado and the Air Force Academy and follows the tracks and wagon wheel ruts of thousands of early pioneers through Kansas and Missouri as well as settlements and historic places in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky until the trail joins the Northern route in Cincinnati. West Virginia is next, then Maryland to the C&O Canal into Washington D.C. The Trail passes the Mall, the White House, the Capitol, and then heads on to Annapolis. Finally, in Delaware, the ADT reaches its eastern terminus at Cape Henlopen State Park and the Atlantic Ocean. Between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans one will experience some of the most spectacular scenery in the world, thousands of historic sites, lakes, rivers and streams of every size. The trail offers an opportunity to discover America from small towns, to rural countryside, to large metropolitan areas, When the President signs this legislation into law, a twelve year effort will have been achieved--the American Discovery Trail will have become a reality. The more people who use it, the better.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior to issue a report to the Congress that details the specific steps the Department of the Interior will take to contract activities and programs of the Department to Alaska Natives. Legislation already exists for contracting with and hiring Alaska Natives. Sections 1307 and 1308 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and section 638 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act are clear on these matters. The problem is that the law have been largely ignored. Outside of a few studies that were contracted to Native Associations during the past two years, the record of the Department in contracting and local hiring is abysmal. I have been told by representatives of this Administration that there are obstacles in both contracting with and hiring local Natives. When pressed, the obstacles are not well explained, if at all. Mr. President, if there are valid obstacles, we should know specifically what they are so that Congress can address them. If there are not obstacles, then the Administration should begin to implement the law. My legislation requires a complete explanation of the ``Obstacles'' and a plan for implementing the law in accordance with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conversation Act and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. In addition to the report required by this legislation, the Secretary is also directed to initiate a pilot program to contract various National Park Service functions, operations and programs in northwest Alaska to local Native entities. Mr. President, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the other agencies within the Department have an opportunity to hire and contract with local Alaska Natives who were born, raised and live near and in our parks, refuges and public lands in Alaska. These individuals are more familiar with the area than persons hired from outside Alaska. They know the history, they know the hazards, they know about living and working in arctic conditions. Given the levels of unemployment in the area, it makes absolutely no sense not to hire these individuals. I do not understand why any of one of these agencies or bureaus keep filing positions with persons from the lower 48--individuals who have little experience in Alaska--when they have a qualified individuals in the immediate area. If we can just get the Federal agencies in the State of Alaska to read sections 1307 and 1308 of ANILCA and section 638 of ISEAA it would be a major step in the right direction. If Alaska Natives are given the opportunity to contract with and be employed by the Federal agencies in my State, everyone wins, no one loses, and the American public will be better served.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Inbox Privacy Act of 1999 on behalf of myself, Senators Torricelli, Burns and Reid. Our legislation provides a solution to the burden of junk e-mail, also known as spam, that now plagues the Internet. There are five main components to this legislation: Online marketers must honestly identify themselves Consumers have the ultimate decision as to what comes into their inbox Consumers and domain owners can stop further transmissions of spam to those who do not want to receive it Internet Service Providers are relieved from the burdens associated with spam A federal solution is provided to a nationwide problem while giving states, ISP's, and the Federal Trade Commission authority to go after those who flood the Internet with fraudulent emails. The burden of spam is evident in my home state of Alaska. Unlike urban and suburban areas of the nation where a local telephone call is all it takes to log onto the Internet, rural areas of Alaska and many other states have no such local access. Every minute connected to the Internet, whether it is for researching a school project, checking a bank balance, searching for the latest information on the weather at the local airport, or even shopping online incurs a per minute long distance charge. The extra financial cost of the longer call to download spam may only be a small amount on a day to day basis, but over the long term this cost is a very real financial disincentive to using the Internet. Some estimates place the cost at over $200 per year for rural Americans. If Internet commerce is to continue to expand, all Internet consumers must be able to avoid costs for the receipt of advertising material such as spam that they do not want to receive. As I've said before, the Internet is not a tool for every huckster to sell the Brooklyn Bridge. Last Congress I was the author of Title III of S. 1618 which unanimously passed the Senate and was supported by a variety of interested Internet groups. Some wanted an outright ban on such solicitations, but banning non-fraudulent Internet commerce is a dangerous precedent to set, particularly where the problem today is caused by fraudulent marketers. I also recognize that there are First Amendment concerns raised by any Internet content legislation and am pleased that our approach has the support of civil liberties organizations. The most significant difference between this legislation and Title III of S. 1618 is the addition of a domain-wide opt-out system that allows Internet domain owners to put up an electronic stop sign to signify their desire to not receive unsolicited commercial email to addresses served by their domain. However, to ensure that the Internet consumer has the ultimate choice, consumers would be able to inform their ISP of their continuing desire to receive junk e-mail. While I doubt that there will be too many Internet consumers who want to receive junk e-mail, Congress should not make the decision for them by banning junk e-mail outright, no matter how annoying it may be. Not only should consumers have the ultimate choice, but if Congress bans junk e-mail, what else on the Internet will we ban next? Finally, I have included a state enforcement provision that allows all states to enforce a national standard on junk e-mail. As Congress has seen before in the Internet Tax Freedom debate, a unified approach to any Internet legislation is key to promoting the development of the Internet. Just as having 50 state tax policies on Internet transactions represents a poor policy decision, so would having 50 state policies on spam legislation. My approach solves this dilemma by setting such a national standard that provides for even greater protection that what a few states have already enacted. By setting a national standard, it also solves the constitutional dilemma that many states face regarding long-arm jurisdiction. Mr. President, the Inbox Privacy Act represents a significant step forward for Internet consumers and domain owners and I urge its adoption by my colleagues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Jeff Bingaman in introducing the Commemorative Coin Amendments Act of 1999. Our legislation would extend the new commemorative quarter program to include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. As one of the few Members of Congress who can remember when my home state was a territory and as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with jurisdiction over the territories of the United States, I feel that it is more than appropriate for the U.S. Mint to recognize the contributions of these six entities. However, Mr. President, the reason for minting these six coins goes beyond historical significance. Americans who work in the mining and transportation industries will benefit from my legislation. The U.S. Treasury will benefit as collectors remove quarters from circulation. The government spends 5 cents to mint each quarter. Any quarter removed from circulation by collectors earns the U.S. Treasury a profit of 20 cents. A study by Coopers and Lybrand found that the the federal Treasury could take in more than $2 billion dollars for the first fifty quarter designs. Six more coins will certainly add to that revenue windfall. Mr. President, let me turn to the historical reasons for this bill. The District of Columbia was the only land designated by the U.S. Constitution. It has served as the home of Congress and the White House for all but brief periods of time. Within its boundaries reside the Archives of the United States, home of the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The District of Columbia is home to numerous monuments honoring important Americans who have changed the course of history as well as events that have changed the course of our nation. The District of Columbia was where Martin Luther King spoke his moving ``I have a dream'' address. And finally, it is the place that the world looks to for political and economic leadership. The inclusion of the territories of the United States in this legislation serves as an important reminder of our history. With very few exceptions, such as Texas and those States that formed the original thirteen Colonies, all of my colleagues come from States that at one time were territories. Four of us actually remember the days when our constituents were not represented in the Senate and were afforded only a non-voting delegate in the House. The history of our Nation is written in the development of the territories--the social and economic forces that forged our Nation. Our current inhabited territories are an integral part of that heritage and are also a part of our future. Guam, the southernmost of the Mariana Islands, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico were acquired at the conclusion of the Spanish- American war, as was the Philippines. Their acquisition and subsequent development was the focus of a spirited debate in Congress, the Administration, and eventually in the Supreme Court over the nature and applicability of provisions of the Constitution. Not since the Louisiana Purchase a century earlier had there been such a debate over the boundaries of the United States. Guam, acquired in one war, was occupied by Japan in another. The sacrifices of the residents of Guam prior to liberation led to the granting of citizenship and the establishment of full local self- government. Former President Bush was forced to ditch his plane during the conflict in the Marianas and our former colleague, Senator Heflin, was wounded in the liberation of Guam. Puerto Rico, with a population approaching 4 million and an economy larger than many States, has set the mark in political self-government for those territories that are not fully under the Constitution. Puerto Rico was the first territory to achieve local self-government pursuant to a locally drafted Constitution other than as part of either Statehood or Independence. Since that time, however, both American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas have adopted local constitutions and both Guam and the Virgin Islands exercise similar authorities under their Organic legislation. Puerto Rico has the longest continually occupied capital in the United States, San Juan, and was the site where one of its Governors, Ponce de Leon, sailed for Florida. American Samoa was acquired under Treaties of Cession in 1900 and 1904 following the Tripartite Agreement between Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. The history of the Samoas demonstrates both the European conflicts in the Pacific as well as the emergence of the United States as a Pacific power. American Samoa, the only territory south of the Equator, demonstrates the diversity that marks this Nation. American Samoa is the only territory where the residents are nationals rather than citizens of the United States. Past Governors, such as Peter Coleman, have been important representatives of the United States in the Pacific community and respected leaders. The United States Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark in 1916 for $25 million. The purchase did not provoke the divisive debates that surrounded the Louisiana Purchase nor some of the merriment that accompanied the purchase of Alaska. The Danish heritage continues to be evident in the capitol at Charlotte Amalie on St. Thomas as well as at Christiansted National Historic Site on St. Croix, the heart of the former Danish West Indies. Salt River Bay, on St. Croix, is the only known site where members of the Columbus expedition actually set foot on what is now United States soil. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is the newest territory of the United States. The area had been part of a League of Nations Mandate to Japan prior to World War II and saw some of the fiercest fighting of the Pacific theater, especially on Saipan. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which brought the war to an end were launched from Tinian. After the war, the area became part of a United Nation's Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. In 1976 the United States approved a Covenant to establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a document that had been negotiated with representatives of the Marianas government and approved in a local U.N. observed plebescite. Formal extension of United States sovereignty came with the termination of the Trusteeship by the Security Council a decade later. As an interesting historical note, the acquisition of the Northern Mariana Islands ends the artificial division created in 1898 when the United States acquired Guam and Spain sold the remainder of its possessions in the Marianas to Germany. Mr. President, the District of Columbia and the territories are an important part of our heritage and our future. They encompass territory where our nation's government resides, where Columbus landed in the Virgin Islands, and where ``America's Day Begins'' in the Pacific. It is altogether fitting that their unique character and contributions be recognized by the issuance of appropriate coins. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the University of Alaska (the University) is Alaska's oldest post-secondary school. The University was chartered prior to statehood and has played a vital role in educating Alaskans as well as students from around the world in the United States' only arctic and sub-arctic environment. Additionally, the University has served as an important cornerstone in Alaska's history. For example, the University housed the Alaska Constitutional Convention where the fathers of statehood carved out the rights and privileges guaranteed to Alaska's citizens. Further, the University of Alaska is proud of the fact that it began life as the Alaska Agricultural and Mining College. However, Mr. President, what makes the University of Alaska truly unique is the fact that it is the only land grant college in the Nation that is virtually landless. As my colleagues know, one of the oldest and most respected ways of financing America's educational system has been the land grant system. Established in 1785, this practice gives land to schools and universities for their use in supporting their educational endeavors. In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Act which created the land grant colleges and universities as a way to underwrite the cost of higher education to more and more Americans. These colleges and universities received land from the federal government for facility location and, more importantly, as a way to provide sustaining revenues to these educational institutions. The University of Alaska received the smallest amount of land of any state, with the exception of Delaware, that has a land grant college. Even the land grant college in Rhode Island received more land from the federal government than has the University of Alaska. In a state the size of Alaska, we should logically have one of the best and most fully funded land grant colleges in the country. Unfortunately, without the land promised under the land grant allocation system and earlier legislation, the University is unable to share as one of the premier land grant colleges in the country. Previous efforts in Congress were made to fix this problem. These efforts date back to 1915, less than 50 years after the passage of the Morrill Act, when Alaska's Delegate James Wickersham shepherded a measure through Congress that set aside potentially more than a quarter of a million acres, in the Tanana Valley outside of Fairbanks, for the support of an agricultural college and school of mines. Following the practice established in the lower 48 for other land grant colleges, Wickersham's bill set aside every Section 33 of the unsurveyed Tanana Valley for the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines. Alaska's educational future looked very bright. Many Alaskans saw the opportunity to set up an endowment system similar to that established by the University of Washington in the downtown center of Seattle, where valuable University lands are leased and provide funding for the University of Washington which uses those revenues in turn to provide for its programs and facilities. Mr. President, before that land could be transferred to the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines (renamed the University of Alaska in 1935), the land had to be surveyed in order to establish the exact acreage included in the reserved land. The sections reserved for education could not be transferred to the College until they had been delineated. According to records of the time, it was unlikely, given the incredibly slow speed of surveying, that the land could be completely surveyed before the 21st century. Surveying was and is an extraordinarily slow process in Alaska's remote and unpopulated terrain. In all, only 19 section 33's--approximately 11,211 acres--were ever transferred to the University. Of this amount, 2,250 were used for the original campus and the remainder was left to support educational opportunities. Recognizing the difficulties of surveying in Alaska, subsequent legislation was passed in 1929 that simply granted land for the benefit of the University. This grant totaled approximately 100,000 acres and to this day comprises the bulk of the University's roughly 112,000 acres of land--less than one third of what it was originally promised. In 1958, the Alaska Statehood Act was passed which extinguished the original land grants for all lands that remained unsurveyed. Thus, the University was left with little land with which to support itself and thus is unable to completely fulfill its mission as a land grant college. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would redeem the promises made to the University in 1915 and put it on an even footing with the other land grant colleges in the United States. The bill provides the University with the land needed to support itself financially and offers it the chance to grow and continue to act as a responsible steward of the land and educator of our young people. The legislation also provides a concrete timetable under which the University must select its lands and the Secretary of the Interior must act upon those selections. This legislation also contains significant restrictions on the land the University can select. The University cannot select land located within a Conservation System Unit. The University cannot select old growth timber lands in the Tongass National Forest. Finally, the University cannot select land validly conveyed to the State or an ANCSA corporation, or land used in connection with federal or military institutions. Additionally, under my bill the University must relinquish extremely valuable inholdings in Alaska once it receives its state/federal selection awarded under Section 2, of this bill. Therefore, the result of this legislation will mean the relinquishment of prime University inholdings in such magnificent areas as the Alaska Peninsula & Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, The Kenai Fjords National Park, Wrangell St. Elias National Park and Preserve, and Denali Park and Preserve. So, Mr. President, not only does this bill uphold a decades old promise to the University of Alaska, it further protects Alaska's parks and refuges. Specifically, this bill would grant the University 250,000 acres of federal land. Additionally, the University would be eligible to receive an additional 250K acres on a matching basis with the state for a total of 500K additional acres. This, obviously, would be done through the state legislative process involving the Governor, the Legislature, and the University's Board of Regents. Mr. President, the state matching provision is an important component of this legislation. Most agree with the premise that the University was shorted land. However, some believe it is solely the responsibility of the federal government to compensate the University with land while others believe it is solely the responsibility of the state to grant the University land. The legislation I am introducing today offers a compromise giving both the state and the federal government the opportunity to contribute while at the same time providing the federal government with valuable inholdings in parks and refuges. Finally, this bill contains a provision that incorporates a concept put forth by the Governor of Alaska. This provision directs the Secretary of the Interior to attempt to conclude an agreement with the University and the Governor of Alaska providing for sharing NPRA leasing revenues in lieu of land selections north of latitude 69 degrees North. The provision restricts any agreement regarding revenue sharing to prevent the University from obtaining more than ten percent of such annual revenues or more than nine million dollars each fiscal year. If an agreement is reached and provides for disposition of some portion of NPRA mineral leasing revenues to the University, the Secretary shall submit the proposed agreement to Congress for ratification. If the Secretary fails to reach an agreement within two years of enactment, or if Congress fails to ratify such agreement within three years from enactment, the University may select up to 92,000 of its 250,000 initial land grant from lands within NPRA north of latitude 69. Therefore, this bill has been substantially changed from versions introduced in previous Congresses in two dramatic ways. First, in response to concerns from the Administration and environmental organizations the old growth areas of the Tongass National Forest are off limits for selection by the University. The only areas of the Tongass that could be selected by the University are those areas previously harvested. It is important that the University be allowed to select lands in this area as having the ability to study and manage as such areas are important tools for the University's School of Forestry. The second substantial change to the bill, which was previously noted, is the revenue sharing component. This aspect provides an alternative means of providing for the needs of the University. With the passage of this bill, the University of Alaska will finally be able to act fully as a land grant college. It will be able to select lands that can provide the University with a stable revenue source as well as provide responsible stewardship for the land. This is an exciting time for the University of Alaska. The promise that was made more than 80 years ago could be fulfilled by passage of this legislation and Alaskans could look forward to a very bright future for the University of Alaska and those who receive an education there.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Ted Stevens in introducing legislation that would clarify a provision in the tax code that exempts the State of Alaska from the IRS diesel dyeing rules. The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 included a provision that exempted Alaska from the diesel dyeing requirements during the period the state was exempted from the Clean Air Act low sulfur diesel dyeing rules. For various reasons, it was believed at the time that Alaska would ultimately be permanently exempted from the Clean Air Act rules. However, technological changes suggest that Alaska may in the next few years lose its exemption from the low sulfur rules. However, in our view, whether Alaska is exempted from the low sulfur rules, it is imperative that Alaska be permanently exempted from the IRS diesel dyeing rules. That is what our bill does. Today, more than 95 percent of all diesel fuel used in Alaska is exempt from tax because it is used for heating, power generation, or in commercial fishing boats. Under the diesel dyeing rules in place in 49 states, exempt diesel must be dyed. If these diesel dyeing rules were applied to Alaska, refiners would have to buy huge quantities of dye, along with expensive injection systems, to dye all of this non-taxable diesel fuel. Although the Joint Tax Committee originally estimated in 1996 that repealing the dyeing rules for Alaska could cost the Treasury $500,000 a year, some refiners were spending as much as $750,000 on dye alone. Add on another $100,000 for injection systems and you begin to wonder what happened to common sense regulation. Congress saw it that way and decided to exempt Alaska. Now that exemption should be made permanent. Approximately 65 percent of the state's communities are served solely by barges. For many of these communities, the fuel oil barge comes in only once a year when the waterways are not frozen. It is absurd to require these communities to build a second storage facility for undyed taxable fuel simply for the few vehicles in town that are subject to tax. It is currently projected that the state will have to spend from $200 million to $400 million just to repair fuel storage tanks in hundreds of rural communities because of leaking fuel problems. If IRS dyeing rules were in place, millions more would have to be spent simply to maintain a small supply of taxable diesel in each of these communities. Mr. President, in 1996, Congress acted sensibly in exempting Alaska from the IRS diesel dyeing rules. It is my hope that we will again see the wisdom of exempting Alaska, this time making it a permanent exemption. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens to introduce legislation that would resolve a dispute that has existed for several years between the IRS and native whaling captains in my state. Our legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code to ensure that a charitable donation tax deduction would be allowed for native whaling captains who organize and support subsistence whaling activities in their communities. Substence whaling is a necessity to the Alaska Native community. In many of our remote village communities, the whale hunt is a tradition that has been carried on for generations over many millennia. It is the custom that the captain of the hunt make all provisions for the meals, wages and equipment costs associated with this important activity. In most instances, the Captain is repaid in whale meat and muktuck, which is blubber and skin. However, as part of the tradition, the Captain is required to donate a substantial portion of the whale to his village in order to help the community survive. The proposed deduction would allow the Captain to deduct up to $7,500 to help defray the costs associated with providing this community service. Mr. President, I want to point out that if the Captain incurred all of these expenses and then donated the whale meat to a local charitable organization, the Captain would almost certainly be able to deduct the costs he incurred in outfitting the boat for the charitable purpose. However, the cultural significance of the Captain's sharing the whale with the community would be lost. This is a very modest effort to allow the Congress to recognize the importance of this part of our Native Alaskan tradition. When this measure passed the senate two years ago, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that this provision would cost a mere three million dollars over a 10 year period. I think that is a very small price for preserving this vital link with our natives' heritage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Ted Stevens in introducing legislation that would clarify a provision in the tax code that exempts the State of Alaska from the IRS diesel dyeing rules. The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 included a provision that exempted Alaska from the diesel dyeing requirements during the period the state was exempted from the Clean Air Act low sulfur diesel dyeing rules. For various reasons, it was believed at the time that Alaska would ultimately be permanently exempted from the Clean Air Act rules. However, technological changes suggest that Alaska may in the next few years lose its exemption from the low sulfur rules. However, in our view, whether Alaska is exempted from the low sulfur rules, it is imperative that Alaska be permanently exempted from the IRS diesel dyeing rules. That is what our bill does. Today, more than 95 percent of all diesel fuel used in Alaska is exempt from tax because it is used for heating, power generation, or in commercial fishing boats. Under the diesel dyeing rules in place in 49 states, exempt diesel must be dyed. If these diesel dyeing rules were applied to Alaska, refiners would have to buy huge quantities of dye, along with expensive injection systems, to dye all of this non-taxable diesel fuel. Although the Joint Tax Committee originally estimated in 1996 that repealing the dyeing rules for Alaska could cost the Treasury $500,000 a year, some refiners were spending as much as $750,000 on dye alone. Add on another $100,000 for injection systems and you begin to wonder what happened to common sense regulation. Congress saw it that way and decided to exempt Alaska. Now that exemption should be made permanent. Approximately 65 percent of the state's communities are served solely by barges. For many of these communities, the fuel oil barge comes in only once a year when the waterways are not frozen. It is absurd to require these communities to build a second storage facility for undyed taxable fuel simply for the few vehicles in town that are subject to tax. It is currently projected that the state will have to spend from $200 million to $400 million just to repair fuel storage tanks in hundreds of rural communities because of leaking fuel problems. If IRS dyeing rules were in place, millions more would have to be spent simply to maintain a small supply of taxable diesel in each of these communities. Mr. President, in 1996, Congress acted sensibly in exempting Alaska from the IRS diesel dyeing rules. It is my hope that we will again see the wisdom of exempting Alaska, this time making it a permanent exemption. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens to introduce legislation that would resolve a dispute that has existed for several years between the IRS and native whaling captains in my state. Our legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code to ensure that a charitable donation tax deduction would be allowed for native whaling captains who organize and support subsistence whaling activities in their communities. Substence whaling is a necessity to the Alaska Native community. In many of our remote village communities, the whale hunt is a tradition that has been carried on for generations over many millennia. It is the custom that the captain of the hunt make all provisions for the meals, wages and equipment costs associated with this important activity. In most instances, the Captain is repaid in whale meat and muktuck, which is blubber and skin. However, as part of the tradition, the Captain is required to donate a substantial portion of the whale to his village in order to help the community survive. The proposed deduction would allow the Captain to deduct up to $7,500 to help defray the costs associated with providing this community service. Mr. President, I want to point out that if the Captain incurred all of these expenses and then donated the whale meat to a local charitable organization, the Captain would almost certainly be able to deduct the costs he incurred in outfitting the boat for the charitable purpose. However, the cultural significance of the Captain's sharing the whale with the community would be lost. This is a very modest effort to allow the Congress to recognize the importance of this part of our Native Alaskan tradition. When this measure passed the senate two years ago, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that this provision would cost a mere three million dollars over a 10 year period. I think that is a very small price for preserving this vital link with our natives' heritage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President I rise today to recognize the outstanding accomplishments and distinguished service of Captain Dorothy C. Stratton, U.S. Coast Guard Reserve (Ret), on this her 100th birthday. She has served her country with honor as an educator, naval officer and public official. Born in Brookfield, Missouri, Captain Stratton earned a Bachelor of Arts from Ottawa University in Ottawa, Kansas; a Master of Arts in Psychology from the University of Chicago; and a Doctorate of Philosophy in Student Personnel Administration from Columbia University. Captain Stratton joined Purdue University as the Dean of Women and Associate Professor of Psychology in 1933, becoming a full professor in 1940. In June, 1942, with our nation embroiled in war, Professor Stratton left Purdue to join the Women Appointed Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES). She was assigned as the Assistant to the Commanding Officer of the U.S. Naval Training Station in Madison, Wisconsin. Due to the military's pressing need for personnel, Congress authorized the Women's Reserve of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Act creating the Women's Reserve was signed into law by President Roosevelt on November 23, 1942, and within hours, Stratton became the first director of the new organization. She was the first female officer accepted for service in the history of the U.S. Coast Guard. She rose from Lieutenant Commander to the rank of Commander on January 1, 1944 and to the rank of Captain one month later. One of Captain Stratton's first acts as Director of the U.S. Coast Guard Women's Reserve was to coin the famous name that would distinguish them from the Navy WAVES and the Army WACS. In a memo to the Commandant ADM Russell R. Waesche, Stratton explained: ``The motto of the Coast Guard is `Semper Paratus--Always Ready.' The initials of this motto are of course, SPAR. Why not call the members of the Women's Reserve SPARS? . . . As I understand it, a spar is often a supporting beam and that is what we hope each member of the Women's Reserve will be.'' Admiral Waesche agreed, and the rest, as they say, is history. Captain Stratton led over 10,000 volunteers who responded to their nation's call for help between 1942 and 1946. She completed her service as Director of the SPARS in January, 1946 and was awarded the Legion of Merit. She then served as Director of Personnel for the International Monetary Fund from 1946 to 1950, and as the National Executive Director of the Girl Scouts of America from 1950 to 1960. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Captain Dorothy Stratton and to thank her for all she has done for this great country of ours. She is a shining example to us all, and it is truly a pleasure to wish her a happy birthday today.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are ten years older, but are we ten years wiser since the Exxon Valdez oil spill? With the anniversary of the Nation's worst oil spill occurring today, the question most asked by national media is how the environment and wildlife of Alaska has fared. In fact, just last week on a ``60 minutes'' story this exact question was asked. It was asked not only by the network doing the story, but by the Alaskans being interviewed. What's particularly frustrating is that in many cases it is still not possible to give informed answers. In the years since 11.3 million gallons of crude oil bubbled into the sea, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustees Council has had nearly $800 million of the eventual $900 million that Exxon will pay at their disposal to fund scientific studies. Those studies should have determined the health of marine life, wildlife and the ecosystem of Prince William Sound. But according to the latest summary of scientific studies, while it is possible to say that some species have or are recovering, it is not possible to give a full accounting. According to a report from the council last month very little is known about the health of cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, rockfish or Kittlitz's murrelets. And there is only slightly more information on the health of killer whales, pigeon guillemots, cormorants, and common loon, harbor seals and harlequin ducks. While it is heartening that the Sound appears to be recovering sooner than many thought likely, and that herring and salmon stocks are recovering as are bald eagles and river otters, it is frustrating that more hard scientific data has not been gathered. That is why, Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation, on behalf of myself and Senator Stevens, that will provide for more science to be done on the impacted spill area. The legislation I am introducing will allow for a higher rate of interest to be earned through outside investments of the settlement funds from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The legislation specifies that the interest on investments received under this new authority must be used to support marine research and economic restoration projects for the fishing industry and local fishermen. If the trustees choose to use this authority, an additional $20 million to $30 million could be generated for research and restoration between now and 2001. The legislation further requires the trustees to present a report to Congress recommending a structure the trustees believe would be most effective and appropriate for the administration and expenditure of remaining funds and interest received. This provision is also consistent with comments from the public suggesting that an independent science-oriented board should control the process of funding science projects, rather than trustees who represent agencies that may be seeking project funding. I, for one, believe the Council's priorities have been misplaced which has necessitated this legislation. They have been unwilling to admit that science does not yet provide many mitigation answers; instead, the spill trustees have decided to go on a land buying spree as an alternative. This is a mistake, Mr. President. In a State where 68 percent of all land is federally owned and where individuals own less than 1 percent of all property, the trustees have allocated $416 million of the initial $900 million court settlement just for land acquisitions. They have nearly completed the purchase of 647,000 acres in and around Prince William Sound and just recently voted to set aside an additional $55 million to fund acquisitions, literally, forever even though most of the land being bought was not directly affected by the spill. Alaska Natives worked for decades to win the 1971 land settlement that gave them control of 44 million acres of Alaska. Now, in less than a quarter of a century, Natives have lost much of the land they had fought to gain--a good part of the Native lands in the region have been reacquired through the actions of the trustees. It is ironic, indeed, that the United States purchased Alaska for $7.2 million in 1867 and that 60 times more money already has been committed to buy back parts of it. Back in 1994 when $600 million of the settlement was still uncommitted, I urged the trustees to commit the bulk of the settlement to a ``permanent fund'' that would provide a perpetual source of significant funding for research or mitigation projects. I also urged the trustees to utilize the expertise of the University of Alaska in undertaking those studies. I warned that if too much funding was allocated to land acquisition, or spent on marginal science, less money would be available to fund sound studies to shed light on the mysteries affecting commercial and sport fisheries and marine life and wildlife in the Sound. In the intervening years we have seen General Accounting Office audits documenting that the trustees have pad on average 56 percent above government-appraised value for the lands it has acquired. We've seen a situation this year where the trustees paid nearly $80 million for lands on Kodiak Island, while the Department of the Interior set the value of those same lands at about one-third that amount when it came to funding revenue sharing payments to the Kodiak Island Borough. While the trustees recently voted to place about $115 million of the settlement aside to provide interest to fund future scientific studies, I believe the earnings from all of the roughly $170 million still owed by Exxon should be devoted to pay for marine research and monitoring including applied fisheries research. I believe this approach will give us answers, not leave us guessing, about what is happening to the Sound and what we can do to improve the habitat of the region. The legislation we introduce today will begin to address this need. Long after the Sound has healed its wounds, those lands bought by the trustees will be lost forever to economic activity and to the Native heritage. Nowhere could this be clearer than the example of one Native corporation that agreed to sell its lands with the intent to invest in a perpetual trust to help children go to school and provide solutions to other problems. Instead it was pressured to make a one time payment to each shareholder. The longest-lasting legacy of the tragedy may be that some of the Natives find themselves like the Biblical Esau who sold his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage and bread. When the meal was gone so was his heritage. When that one-time payment has been spent, what will have been gained and what will pass on to their children? Today, another tragedy is clear, we still do not have the answers to the effects of the spill, even though we had the wherewithal to have obtained them. Mr. President, immediately following the spill, I sponsored a provision in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which was passed by Congress, to create Regional Citizens Advisory Councils, giving local residents the authority and the resources to improve all aspects of oil transport planning and cleanup. Patterned after a concept then in place at the Port of Sullom Voe in the North Sea's Shetland Islands, there is no question that the oversight and creativity that the councils engendered have done the most to make Alaska's oil transportation system the best in the world. It is time for Congress to act again today, to ensure that we have the resources to obtain the best science available in understanding Prince William Sound. I believe this bill will allow us to do just that.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Rural and Remote Community Fairness Act. This Act will lead to a brighter future for rural and remote communities by establishing three new programs that will address the unique economic and environmental challenges faced by small communities in rural and remote areas across this country. I am pleased that this legislation is co-sponsored by the Minority Leader, Senator Daschle. The bill authorizes up to $100 million a year in grant aid from 2000 through 2006 for any communities across the nation with populations of less than 10,000 which face electric rates in excess of 150 percent of the national average retail price. The money can go for electricity system improvements, energy efficiency and weatherization efforts, water and sanitation improvements or work to solve leaking fuel storage tanks. The bill also amends the Rural Electrification Act to authorize Rural and Remote Electrification Grants of an additional $20 million a year to the same communities. The grants can be used to increase energy efficiency, lower electricity rates or provide for the modernization of electric facilities. The bill also establishes a new program providing rural recovery community development block grants. This will provide for the development and maintenance of viable rural areas through the provision of affordable housing and community development assistance for rural areas with excessively high rates of outmigration and low per capita income levels. This nation has well-established programs for community development grants. The majority of these programs were established to help resolve the very real problems found in this Nation's urban areas. However, our most rural and remote communities experience different, but equally real, problems that are not addressed by existing law. Not only are these communities generally ineligible for the existing programs, their unique challenges, while sometimes similar to those experienced by urban areas, require a different focus and approach. The biggest single economic problem facing small communities is the expense of establishing a modern infrastructure. These costs, which are always substantial, are exacerbated in remote and rural areas. The existence of this infrastructure, including efficient housing, electricity, bulk fuel storage, waste water and water service, is a necessity for the health and welfare of our children, the development of a prosperous economy and minimizing environmental problems. There is a real cost in human misery and to the health and welfare of everyone, especially our children and our elderly from poor or polluted water or bad housing or an inefficient power system. Hepatitis B infections in rural Alaska are five times more common than in urban Alaska. We just have to do better if we are to bring our rural communities into the 21 Century. The experience of many of Alaskans is a perfect example. Most small communities or villages in Alaska are not interconnected to an electricity grid, and rely upon diesel generators for their electricity. Often, the fuel can only be delivered by barge or airplane, and is stored in tanks. These tanks are expensive to maintain, and in many cases, must be completely replaced to prevent leakage of fuel into the environment. While the economic and environmental savings clearly justify the construction of new facilities, these communities simply don't have the ability to raise enough capital to make the necessary investments. As a result, these communities are forced to bear an oppressive economic and environmental burden that can be eased with a relatively small investment on the part of the Federal government. I can give you some examples: in Manley Hot Springs, Alaska, the citizens pay almost 70 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. In Igiugig, Kokhanok, Akiachak Native Community, and Middle Kuskokwim, consumers all pay over 50 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. The national average is around 7 cents per kilowatt hour. Further, in Alaska, for example, many rural villages still lack modern water and sewer sanitation systems taken for granted in all other areas of America. According to a Federal Field Working Group, 190 of the state's villages have ``unsafe" sanitation systems, 135 villages still using ``honey buckets'' for waste disposal. Only 31 villages have a fully safe, piped water system; 71 villages having only one central watering source. These are not only an Alaskan problem. The highest electricity rates in America are paid by a small community in Missouri, and communities in Maine, as well as islands in Rhode Island and New York will likely qualify for this program. Providing safe drinking water and adequate waste treatment facilities is a problem for very small communities all across this land. What will this Act do to address these problems? First, the Act authorizes $100 million per year for the years 2000-2006 for block grants to communities of under 10,000 inhabitants who pay more than 150% of the national average retail price for electricity. The grants will be allocated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development among eligible communities proportionate to cost of electricity in the community, as compared to the National average. The communities may use the grants only for the following eligible activities: Low-cost weatherization of homes and other buildings; Construction and repair of electrical generation, transmission, distribution, and related facilities; Construction, remediation and repair of bulk fuel storage facilities; Facilities and training to reduce costs of maintaining and operating electrical generation, distribution, transmission, and related facilities; Professional management and maintenance for electrical generation, distribution and transmission, and related facilities; Investigation of the feasibility of alternate energy services; Construction, operation, maintenance and repair of water and waste water services; Acquisition and disposition of real property for eligible activities and facilities; and Development of an implementation plan, including administrative costs for eligible activities and facilities. In addition this bill will amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize Rural and Remote Electrification Grants for $20 million per year for years 2000-2006 for grants to qualified borrowers under the Act that are in rural and remote communities who pay more than 150% of the national average retail price for electricity. These grants can be used to increase energy efficiency, lower electricity rates, or provide or modernize electric facilities. This Act makes a significant step toward resolving the critical social, economic and environmental problems faced by our Nation's rural and remote communities. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. For the information of the Senate and the public, the bill can also be obtained from the Internet at: http://thomas.loc.gov. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would require the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress on the feasibility and desirability of recovering the cost to taxpayers of rescuing high altitude climbers on Mt. McKinley in Denali National Park and Preserve in the State of Alaska. Mr. President, Denali National Park and Preserve attracts approximately 355,000 visitors per year who come to see the wildlife, the grandeur of our State, and to gaze at America's highest peak. Most are unaware that while they are taking in the breathtaking vista that is Mt. McKinley, there are approximately another 1,100 persons per year that are attempting to attain the 20,320 summit. Climbing Mt. McKinley is certainly no easy walk in the Park. A typical year sees a dozen major rescue incidents and one or two fatal accidents. Extreme and unpredictable weather on Mt. McKinley make high altitude rescues very dangerous and very expensive. Over the last few years the National Park Service has actively and successfully worked to reduce the loss of life and injury to climbers who have attempted to climb this mountain. The NPS spends more than $750,000 per year for education; pre-positioning supplies and materials at various altitudes on the mountain; the positioning of a special high altitude helicopter in the Park; and actual rescue attempts. Just last year the military and the Park Service spent four days and $221,818 rescuing 6 sick and injured British climbers who disregarded warnings and advice from park rangers stationed on the mountain. This rescue included what is probably the world's highest short haul helicopter rescue at 19,000 feet and entailed a very high level of risk for the rescue team. This is just one example of many rescues the Park Service conducts each year on Mt. McKinley. Mr. President, I personally do not feel that the American taxpayer should be left with the bill for rescues on this mountain. The Federal Government does not force these climbers to climb; they engage in this activity voluntarily and with full knowledge of the risks. While I admire the courage and tenacity of mountain climbers, I do not think it is fair to divert scarce park funds from services that benefit the majority of park visitors for the purpose of providing extraordinarily expensive services to a small number of users who put themselves in harm's way with their eyes wide open. Mountain climbers are a special breed who are proud of their self-sufficiency and independence-- and rightly so. For that reason I think they should recognize the simple equity of paying their fair share of the public costs of their sport. As a result of a recent field hearing on this issue, I found that while I have received many letters of support, there are a few stalwart individuals who do not agree with my point of view and have raised some legitimate questions. That is why I want the Secretary of the Interior to look at the feasibility and desirability of some sort of a cost recovery system that puts a minimal burden on climbers, whether it be an insurance requirement, bonding, or any other proposal. The pros and cons of these cost recovery mechanisms need to be carefully explored before we act. Last but not least, Mr. President, I want the Secretary to evaluate requiring climbers to show proof of medical insurance so that hospitals in Alaska and elsewhere are not left holding the bag as they sometimes are under present circumstances. It is a good neighbor policy that should be put into effect at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. What I am attempting to do is accommodate the floor manager by advising him that we are certainly ready for a vote on a tabling motion, so that you can advise Members of the scheduled for the balance of the evening. Maybe we can get a time certain.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I could pretty much count on that. I would like to leave for about 20 minutes.