Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is not my intention to object, but there is a matter to clear up with the leadership, if I may have 30 seconds. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to consider the results of the December 1998 plebiscite on Puerto Rico. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 6, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. For further information, please call James Beirne, Deputy Chief Counsel at (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 257, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. This is an extremely important initiative, which really goes to the heart of our national security policy. The bill simply declares that it is the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as technologically possible, a national missile defense system which is capable of protecting the entire territory of the United States from a limited ballistic missile attack. Why is this important? For one, because most Americans mistakenly believe that we already have a system in place which can intercept and shoot down incoming missiles. We do not. While we can, in some instances, tell in advance if an adversary is likely to launch a ballistic missile strike at the United States, our ability to thwart the attack is limited to diplomatic efforts or, alternatively, to a quick strike military capability of our own. In the case of an unauthorized or accidental missile strike, we have no deterrent capability. Imagine the horror, Mr. President, of knowing a missile strike against an American city was underway and there was nothing we could do to stop it. This is the same bill that Senate Democrats filibustered twice during the 105th Congress. So, why the change of heart? I think that the main reason is that they can no longer sustain the argument that we do not face a threat credible enough to justify deployment of a national missile defense system. They now acknowledge that we face a number of real threats from many different parts of the globe. Most of these threats are the byproduct of 6 years of flawed administration foreign policy initiatives which have actually increased, not decreased, the likelihood of the post-cold-war threat. What are the threats that we currently face? China comes to mind. While I for one do not consider China an adversary, I am particularly concerned by the wide range of espionage allegations connected to China. First, our military experts believe that China's missile guidance capabilities were enhanced significantly by the Loral/Hughes incidents. And more recently, there are chilling allegations that China has stolen some of our most closely held secrets on miniaturizing warhead technology, thereby exponentially increasing the threat that China poses to the United States and many of our key allies in the Asia/Pacific theater. Last summer, it was widely reported that 13 of China's 18 long-range strategic missiles are armed with nuclear warheads and targeted at American cities. What's more Chinese officials have suggested that we would never support Taiwan in a crisis ``because the United States cares more about Los Angeles than it does Taipei.'' If this type of declaration, on its own, is not justification for deploying a national missile defense system, Mr. President, than nothing is. Let's examine the case of North Korea. This is a country which continues to defy rational behavior, and which seems to be encouraged by this administration's bankrupt North Korea policy. Just yesterday, Secretary Albright announced that the United States would pay North Korea hundreds of millions in food aid to gain access to an underground facility north of Pyong Yong which we believe is connected to their nuclear regime. Plain and simple bribery at it's best. Last year, North Korea fired a multi-stage missile over Japan. No warning and unprovoked. Why? Presumably to show that they have the capability. Iran and Iraq speak for themselves. Additional concerns are the inability of the former Soviet Republics to keep good track of the ICBM's which they inherited from the breakup of the Soviet Union. Be it accidental or deliberate, if these weapons fall into the wrong hands, we will have new foreign policy concerns the likes which none of us have ever seen or will care to address. We are vulnerable, Mr. President, and we need to act to prevent a catastrophe of horrific proportions. The best way to do this is to do what should have been done long ago--deploy a national missile defense system. There are a number of ballistic missile defense programs at various stages of development. Ideally, the United States would pursue a dual track system, namely a sea-based system which could be deployed to various theaters as the need arises. The aim here being to protect our troops and allies which may be at the front line of a confrontation. And a ground based system based in Alaska, which is the only place in all the United States from which true, 100 percent protection of all the United States and her territories can be achieved. By basing a system in Alaska, we will have the added advantage of being close to both the Asian and European theaters. Our aim should be not only to intercept a launched missile, but in being able to intercept it in the still early stages--preferably while it is still over the territory of the aggressor country. As many of my colleagues are aware, we have 80,000 American troops in the Asia/Pacific theater alone. Many of these troops are already well within the range of current North Korean missile capability. As their missile development program advances, we can expect American lives and American soil to be exponentially at risk. We simply cannot stand idly by and wait. We need to be prepared, so that we can protect the American people from such a strike, be it deliberate, unauthorized or accidental. Finally, Mr. President, there are those who argue that S. 257 should be rejected because it sends the wrong signal to Russia and raises flags about the future of the ABM Treaty. Let me say unequivocally that this is not about Russia, and the Russians know it! The ABM Treaty was a product of a different era, an age when the United States and the Soviet Union were alone in their ability to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles. This age passed quickly with the breakup of the Soviet Union, and a much more unsettling world has been left in her place. Today, there are many, many threats and ignoring them will not make them go away. This is not about Russia. This is about the United States and our constitutional and moral duty to protect the people whom we have been elected to represent. Mr. President, I strongly support this measure and commend Senators Cochran and Inouye for their untiring efforts to see that this bill becomes law. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 25, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those who wish to testify or submit a written statement should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Julia McCaul or Colleen Deegan at (202) 224-8115. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help fight a silent epidemic among America's youth. This epidemic can leave young people permanently brain damaged, and in some cases even dead. It is called inhalant abuse. An awful lot of attention goes to substance abuse--alcohol, drugs--but very little attention is being given to inhalant abuse. It seems to be the silent killer. I ask that the bill be introduced pursuant to Senate rule 14 and be placed immediately on the Calendar. My bill amends the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 to include inhalant abuse among the act's definition of ``abused substances,'' thereby allowing schools the option to educate students about the horrors of inhalant abuse. What exactly are inhalants? What are we talking about? Inhalants are the intentional breathing of gas or vapors for the purpose of getting a high. Over 1,400 common products can be abused--lighter fluid, pressurized whipped cream, hair spray; gasoline is often used in my rural State of Alaska. These products are inexpensive, they are easily obtained, and, most of all, they are legal. One inhalant abuse counselor told me, ``If it smells like a chemical, it can be abused.'' It is a silent epidemic because few adults appreciate the severity of the problem or how often it occurs. It is estimated one in five students have tried inhalants by the time they reach the eighth grade. The use of inhalants by children has nearly doubled in the last 10 years. Inhalants are the third most abused substance among teenagers, behind alcohol and tobacco. Inhalants are deadly. Inhalant vapors react with fatty tissues of the brain and literally dissolve those tissues. A one-time use of inhalants can cause instant and permanent brain damage, heart failure, kidney failure, liver failure, or death. The user can also suffer instant heart failure. This is known as sudden sniffing death syndrome. This means an abuser can die on the very first time he or she tries it or the 10th time or the 100th time that an individual sees fit to use an inhalant. In fact, according to a recent study by the National Native Health Consortium, ``inhaling has a higher risk of `instant death' than any other abused substance.'' Think of that: Inhalants have a higher risk of instant death, the first time, than any other abused substance. That is what happened last year to Theresa, an 18-year-old who lived in a rural western Alaska village. Last year Theresa was inhaling gasoline; shortly thereafter, her heart stopped. She was found outside in the near-zero temperature. Theresa was the youngest of five children and just a month shy of graduation. She was flown to the Fairbanks Memorial Hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival. Earlier this year in Pennsylvania, a teenaged driver with four teenaged passengers lost control of her car in broad daylight. The car hit a tree with such impact that all the passengers were killed. High levels of a chemical found in computer keyboard cleaners--think about this, computer keyboard cleaners--were found in the young driver's body. The medical examiner report cited impairment due to inhalant abuse as the cause of that crash. Mr. Haviland, the principal of the school that the five girls attended, said the teacher never suspected that the students were involved with inhalants. That is why this bill is so important. The most effective prevention against inhalant abuse is education. It is preventable. But educators must first know about inhalants before they can teach our kids of their dangers. My bill will amend section 4131 of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to allow States and communities the option to develop programs on inhalant abuse. Under my amendment, the principals, teachers, and counselors will be able to learn about inhalants and will have the option to develop educational programs to teach about inhalant abuse. There is no cost associated with this legislation. This bill makes fiscal sense. A 1993 study by the Alaska Indian Health Service revealed that a 19-year-old chronic inhalant abuser could have an average lifetime cost of up to $1.4 million. These are the costs of chronic medical care, substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation treatment, and social services. The costs go on and on. We can save those costs if we just prevent this type of abuse. The goal of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act is to save the lives of young people, but currently only illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are covered under the definitions of this act. This bill will help us solve the problem and save the lives of our youth. We support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Presiding Officer a pleasant afternoon. I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, for his statement relative to the reality that 22 percent of the Nation's power is generated by nuclear energy. Here we are again today, Mr. President, with an obligation to fulfill a commitment. That obligation and that commitment was made to the ratepayers, the individuals all over America who depend on nuclear energy for their power. They paid $14 billion over the last 18 years. What have they paid for? They have paid the Federal Government to take the waste under contract in the year 1998. That was a year ago. Shakespeare wrote in Henry III, ``Delays have dangerous ends. . . .'' We might also add, ``expensive ends.'' In addition to what the ratepayers have paid, there has been over $6 billion expended by the Federal Government in preparation for the waste primarily at Yucca Mountain. Delay has been the administration's answer to the problem of what to do with nuclear waste in this country. This administration simply doesn't want to take it up on its watch under any terms or circumstances. In 1997, the administration objected to siting a temporary storage facility before 1998 when the viability assessment for Yucca Mountain would be complete. The so-called ``dangerous ends'' to that delay is that 1998 has come and gone. The viability assessment was presented and guess what? There were no show stoppers. Safety issues requiring that we abandon the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project were not called for. The next step, of course, is to move on with the licensing, which is to take place in the year 2001. What is the delay this year? It is the inability of the administration to recognize its contractual commitment under the agreement. To his credit, the new Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson has come forward with the first ever--and I mean first ever-- administration proposal on nuclear waste. The Department of Energy would assume ownership of the used nuclear fuel and continue storing it at its commercial and defense sites in the 41 States across the country. The cost of the storage would be offset by consumer fees collected by the Department of Energy over the past 18 years, as I have stated. These are fees that were to have been dedicated to the removal and permanent storage of the spent fuel. While this proposal may seem interesting, let's reflect on it a little bit, because what it means is that there is no date certain to remove the waste. The waste would sit onsite near the reactors. It seems that we have gone full cycle in one sense. If you recognize that the Government had contracted to take the waste in 1998, the court has specifically stated that the Federal Government is liable to take that waste. So the court says, in effect, the Federal Government owns the waste onsite. The proposal is the Government take the waste onsite. In fact, it owns the waste anyway. Think about it. There is a duplication, of course. I have a map here that I think warrants a little consideration. It shows some of the sites where we have nuclear fuel and radioactive waste that is destined for the geologic disposal. The commercial reactors are in brown in California, in Washington, in Arizona, in Texas, up and down the east coast, in Illinois. We have the shutdown reactors with the spent fuel onsite. These are the little triangles. We have them in Oregon, California, and Illinois. We have them in Michigan. This is significant amounts of waste that would go to a central repository at Yucca Mountain if this administration would come to grips with its responsibility. Commercial spent nuclear fuel storage facilities are depicted by the little black squares. There are a few of them around. Non-DOE research reactors. These are reactors that are spread through the country. Then we have the Navy reactor fuel in Idaho. And we have the Department of Energy-owned spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste in New Mexico. We have this all around the country, Mr. President, and the whole purpose of this legislation is to provide for and put this waste in one central repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada where it would be retrievable. As a consequence, as we look at this proposal--and, again, I would like to point out there is no date for removal--one of the more interesting things is that there are claims now brought about by the nuclear industry against the Federal Government for nonperformance of its contract. Those claims total somewhere between $60 billion and $80 billion. The Government is in default for nonperformance of its contractual obligation. One of the proposals circulated is if the Government agrees to take the waste onsite, that those claims be dropped. If you think about this a little bit more, the Government has already collected a significant amount of money from the ratepayers over the last 18 years, some $14 billion. Now the Government is going to take this waste and use that money, paid for by the ratepayers, to store the nuclear waste onsite for no timeframe that can be ascertained. In other words, this waste is going to sit where it is, Mr. President. We do not know how long because there is no definite date in the proposal for the administration to take the waste. So what have we done? We have simply gone full circle. The court said the Federal Government owned the waste. The Federal Government says they will take it and store it at site. They will not tell you when they are going to get rid of it. They use the money the ratepayers pay to store it there. I don't think that is satisfactory. It is a little different. It is acknowledging that they have come up with a proposal, but I do not think it is workable. What we have here is, if you will, more delay. The Department of Energy--and really it is not the Department of Energy's fault--it is the administration that has broken its promise to the electric consumers, who depend on nuclear energy, people who have paid more than $14 billion to the Federal Government. That $14 billion paid by consumers was designed specifically to remove this waste, Mr. President, to a single--a single--storage facility at Yucca Mountain. And that is what we have been building. The waste, again, was supposed to be taken in the year 1998. Where have we been over the past 15 years? We have done nothing but slip the schedule on nuclear waste. First it was to have this waste removed by the year 2003, then 2005, then 2010, now 2015. With this proposal that I have just mentioned, that is in draft form, they are proposing it go back to 2010. Maybe that is progress; I don't know. Through it all, the nuclear ratepayers have paid the bill, but we are not through with the cost. As I have indicated previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled the Department of Energy had an obligation to take possession of the waste in 1998, whether or not a repository was ready. The court ordered the Department of Energy to pay contractual remedies. This is a pretty big hit on the Federal Government and, hence, the taxpayer, Mr. President. Estimates of damages range as high as $40, $50, $60--up to $80 billion. How do the damages break down? Here they are: the cost of storage of spent nuclear fuel, $19.6 billion; return of nuclear waste fees, $8.5 billion; interest on nuclear waste fees, $15 to $27.8 billion; consequential damages for shutdown of 25 percent of nuclear plants due to insufficient storage--these are power replacement costs-- $24 billion. That is a pretty disastrous scenario for the consumers. It would add, if you will, the high cost of replacement power if these reactors go down as a consequence of not being able to basically remove their waste. There is loss of emissions, a free source of electric energy if the nuclear plants are forced to close. And again, I would remind you that 22 percent of our total electric power is generated from nuclear energy. These costs, these ``dangerous ends'' can be fixed. It is really time for the administration to stop trying out bats, if you will, and step up to the plate on its obligation. So today I once again, along with Senator Craig, and a number of my colleagues, Senator Grams, are introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to solve our immediate liability problems by establishing an interim nuclear waste facility at the Nevada test site. Why the Nevada test site? Over the last 50 years, we have tested nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons in that area numerous times. As a consequence, it appears, and was selected, to be the best site for a permanent repository. What we are proposing, by this legislation, is to move this waste out and put it at site, but have it retrievable so when the permanent repository is ready it can be placed there. In the meantime, we will remove the waste from some 70 sites around the country. In addition, this measure improves the process towards a permanent nuclear waste repository by making sure that funding is adequate and that the process to reach that goal is sound and viable? While my committee will examine the proposal put forth by the Secretary, there is some circular reasoning inherent in it. One, the administration's arguments to date have been that building an interim storage facility would divert funds from the study of the proposed permanent repository. But the Secretary's proposal for continued onsite storage would do just that. It would redirect consumer funds to pay for continued onsite storage. Do we really want this nuclear waste piling up at 71 sites around the Nation rather than one? That is the critical question, Mr. President. Here is the proposed site for the nuclear waste--out in the Nevada desert. And the Nevada test site was previously used for more than 800 nuclear weapons tests. There it is. There is some conversation that suggests, What if the current repository at Yucca Mountain does not prove to be licensable, what will you do with it then? Obviously, we will have to address that. But in the meantime, we would concentrate it out in this area in retrievable casks that would allow us to move it someplace for permanent storage. Or there is the technology that is developing on reprocessing that the Japanese and the French have proceeded with, which is to recover the plutonium out of the spent nuclear fuel and put it back in the reactors. That is another alternative. So the alternative to leaving it at the 71 sites, vis-a-vis putting it out in one place where we have had over 800 nuclear tests over the past 50 years, obviously is a logical and reasonable progression to remove this from the various sites around the United States. Finally, Mr. President, the time for delay is long past. We have had enough delay now. In the last Congress, we had a vote on this matter. It was overwhelmingly bipartisan. There were 65 Members of the U.S. Senate that voted yes--that voted yes--to put the waste in a temporary retrievable repository at Yucca Mountain. In the House there were 307 Members that voted yes. Obviously the time is now at hand to move this bill out, to meet the responsibility that we have committed to with the ratepayers over these last 18 years and take that $14 billion and move this waste out to the Nevada test site once and for all until the permanent repository is licensed. So, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on the merits of this bill--the debate went on in the last Congress--and recognize that we simply cannot put our heads in the sand and ignore this. This is a contract commitment. You have to recognize the sanctity of that contract and the recognition of 22 percent of our power is from nuclear energy, and if we are to allow this industry to strangle on its high- level waste, we are doing a great disservice and simply are going to have to come up with power sources from other generating capabilities that do not offer the air quality that is available by nuclear energy. As we look at global warming and greenhouse gases and various legislative proposals by the administration, the role of nuclear energy is noticeably absent. I think that is unfortunate as we recognize that nuclear energy contributes to reducing greenhouse gases and hence global warming.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Presiding Officer a pleasant afternoon. I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, for his statement relative to the reality that 22 percent of the Nation's power is generated by nuclear energy. Here we are again today, Mr. President, with an obligation to fulfill a commitment. That obligation and that commitment was made to the ratepayers, the individuals all over America who depend on nuclear energy for their power. They paid $14 billion over the last 18 years. What have they paid for? They have paid the Federal Government to take the waste under contract in the year 1998. That was a year ago. Shakespeare wrote in Henry III, ``Delays have dangerous ends. . . .'' We might also add, ``expensive ends.'' In addition to what the ratepayers have paid, there has been over $6 billion expended by the Federal Government in preparation for the waste primarily at Yucca Mountain. Delay has been the administration's answer to the problem of what to do with nuclear waste in this country. This administration simply doesn't want to take it up on its watch under any terms or circumstances. In 1997, the administration objected to siting a temporary storage facility before 1998 when the viability assessment for Yucca Mountain would be complete. The so-called ``dangerous ends'' to that delay is that 1998 has come and gone. The viability assessment was presented and guess what? There were no show stoppers. Safety issues requiring that we abandon the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project were not called for. The next step, of course, is to move on with the licensing, which is to take place in the year 2001. What is the delay this year? It is the inability of the administration to recognize its contractual commitment under the agreement. To his credit, the new Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson has come forward with the first ever--and I mean first ever-- administration proposal on nuclear waste. The Department of Energy would assume ownership of the used nuclear fuel and continue storing it at its commercial and defense sites in the 41 States across the country. The cost of the storage would be offset by consumer fees collected by the Department of Energy over the past 18 years, as I have stated. These are fees that were to have been dedicated to the removal and permanent storage of the spent fuel. While this proposal may seem interesting, let's reflect on it a little bit, because what it means is that there is no date certain to remove the waste. The waste would sit onsite near the reactors. It seems that we have gone full cycle in one sense. If you recognize that the Government had contracted to take the waste in 1998, the court has specifically stated that the Federal Government is liable to take that waste. So the court says, in effect, the Federal Government owns the waste onsite. The proposal is the Government take the waste onsite. In fact, it owns the waste anyway. Think about it. There is a duplication, of course. I have a map here that I think warrants a little consideration. It shows some of the sites where we have nuclear fuel and radioactive waste that is destined for the geologic disposal. The commercial reactors are in brown in California, in Washington, in Arizona, in Texas, up and down the east coast, in Illinois. We have the shutdown reactors with the spent fuel onsite. These are the little triangles. We have them in Oregon, California, and Illinois. We have them in Michigan. This is significant amounts of waste that would go to a central repository at Yucca Mountain if this administration would come to grips with its responsibility. Commercial spent nuclear fuel storage facilities are depicted by the little black squares. There are a few of them around. Non-DOE research reactors. These are reactors that are spread through the country. Then we have the Navy reactor fuel in Idaho. And we have the Department of Energy-owned spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste in New Mexico. We have this all around the country, Mr. President, and the whole purpose of this legislation is to provide for and put this waste in one central repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada where it would be retrievable. As a consequence, as we look at this proposal--and, again, I would like to point out there is no date for removal--one of the more interesting things is that there are claims now brought about by the nuclear industry against the Federal Government for nonperformance of its contract. Those claims total somewhere between $60 billion and $80 billion. The Government is in default for nonperformance of its contractual obligation. One of the proposals circulated is if the Government agrees to take the waste onsite, that those claims be dropped. If you think about this a little bit more, the Government has already collected a significant amount of money from the ratepayers over the last 18 years, some $14 billion. Now the Government is going to take this waste and use that money, paid for by the ratepayers, to store the nuclear waste onsite for no timeframe that can be ascertained. In other words, this waste is going to sit where it is, Mr. President. We do not know how long because there is no definite date in the proposal for the administration to take the waste. So what have we done? We have simply gone full circle. The court said the Federal Government owned the waste. The Federal Government says they will take it and store it at site. They will not tell you when they are going to get rid of it. They use the money the ratepayers pay to store it there. I don't think that is satisfactory. It is a little different. It is acknowledging that they have come up with a proposal, but I do not think it is workable. What we have here is, if you will, more delay. The Department of Energy--and really it is not the Department of Energy's fault--it is the administration that has broken its promise to the electric consumers, who depend on nuclear energy, people who have paid more than $14 billion to the Federal Government. That $14 billion paid by consumers was designed specifically to remove this waste, Mr. President, to a single--a single--storage facility at Yucca Mountain. And that is what we have been building. The waste, again, was supposed to be taken in the year 1998. Where have we been over the past 15 years? We have done nothing but slip the schedule on nuclear waste. First it was to have this waste removed by the year 2003, then 2005, then 2010, now 2015. With this proposal that I have just mentioned, that is in draft form, they are proposing it go back to 2010. Maybe that is progress; I don't know. Through it all, the nuclear ratepayers have paid the bill, but we are not through with the cost. As I have indicated previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled the Department of Energy had an obligation to take possession of the waste in 1998, whether or not a repository was ready. The court ordered the Department of Energy to pay contractual remedies. This is a pretty big hit on the Federal Government and, hence, the taxpayer, Mr. President. Estimates of damages range as high as $40, $50, $60--up to $80 billion. How do the damages break down? Here they are: the cost of storage of spent nuclear fuel, $19.6 billion; return of nuclear waste fees, $8.5 billion; interest on nuclear waste fees, $15 to $27.8 billion; consequential damages for shutdown of 25 percent of nuclear plants due to insufficient storage--these are power replacement costs-- $24 billion. That is a pretty disastrous scenario for the consumers. It would add, if you will, the high cost of replacement power if these reactors go down as a consequence of not being able to basically remove their waste. There is loss of emissions, a free source of electric energy if the nuclear plants are forced to close. And again, I would remind you that 22 percent of our total electric power is generated from nuclear energy. These costs, these ``dangerous ends'' can be fixed. It is really time for the administration to stop trying out bats, if you will, and step up to the plate on its obligation. So today I once again, along with Senator Craig, and a number of my colleagues, Senator Grams, are introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to solve our immediate liability problems by establishing an interim nuclear waste facility at the Nevada test site. Why the Nevada test site? Over the last 50 years, we have tested nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons in that area numerous times. As a consequence, it appears, and was selected, to be the best site for a permanent repository. What we are proposing, by this legislation, is to move this waste out and put it at site, but have it retrievable so when the permanent repository is ready it can be placed there. In the meantime, we will remove the waste from some 70 sites around the country. In addition, this measure improves the process towards a permanent nuclear waste repository by making sure that funding is adequate and that the process to reach that goal is sound and viable? While my committee will examine the proposal put forth by the Secretary, there is some circular reasoning inherent in it. One, the administration's arguments to date have been that building an interim storage facility would divert funds from the study of the proposed permanent repository. But the Secretary's proposal for continued onsite storage would do just that. It would redirect consumer funds to pay for continued onsite storage. Do we really want this nuclear waste piling up at 71 sites around the Nation rather than one? That is the critical question, Mr. President. Here is the proposed site for the nuclear waste--out in the Nevada desert. And the Nevada test site was previously used for more than 800 nuclear weapons tests. There it is. There is some conversation that suggests, What if the current repository at Yucca Mountain does not prove to be licensable, what will you do with it then? Obviously, we will have to address that. But in the meantime, we would concentrate it out in this area in retrievable casks that would allow us to move it someplace for permanent storage. Or there is the technology that is developing on reprocessing that the Japanese and the French have proceeded with, which is to recover the plutonium out of the spent nuclear fuel and put it back in the reactors. That is another alternative. So the alternative to leaving it at the 71 sites, vis-a-vis putting it out in one place where we have had over 800 nuclear tests over the past 50 years, obviously is a logical and reasonable progression to remove this from the various sites around the United States. Finally, Mr. President, the time for delay is long past. We have had enough delay now. In the last Congress, we had a vote on this matter. It was overwhelmingly bipartisan. There were 65 Members of the U.S. Senate that voted yes--that voted yes--to put the waste in a temporary retrievable repository at Yucca Mountain. In the House there were 307 Members that voted yes. Obviously the time is now at hand to move this bill out, to meet the responsibility that we have committed to with the ratepayers over these last 18 years and take that $14 billion and move this waste out to the Nevada test site once and for all until the permanent repository is licensed. So, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on the merits of this bill--the debate went on in the last Congress--and recognize that we simply cannot put our heads in the sand and ignore this. This is a contract commitment. You have to recognize the sanctity of that contract and the recognition of 22 percent of our power is from nuclear energy, and if we are to allow this industry to strangle on its high- level waste, we are doing a great disservice and simply are going to have to come up with power sources from other generating capabilities that do not offer the air quality that is available by nuclear energy. As we look at global warming and greenhouse gases and various legislative proposals by the administration, the role of nuclear energy is noticeably absent. I think that is unfortunate as we recognize that nuclear energy contributes to reducing greenhouse gases and hence global warming.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help fight a silent epidemic among America's youth. This epidemic can leave young people permanently brain damaged, and in some cases even dead. It is called inhalant abuse. An awful lot of attention goes to substance abuse--alcohol, drugs--but very little attention is being given to inhalant abuse. It seems to be the silent killer. I ask that the bill be introduced pursuant to Senate rule 14 and be placed immediately on the Calendar. My bill amends the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 to include inhalant abuse among the act's definition of ``abused substances,'' thereby allowing schools the option to educate students about the horrors of inhalant abuse. What exactly are inhalants? What are we talking about? Inhalants are the intentional breathing of gas or vapors for the purpose of getting a high. Over 1,400 common products can be abused--lighter fluid, pressurized whipped cream, hair spray; gasoline is often used in my rural State of Alaska. These products are inexpensive, they are easily obtained, and, most of all, they are legal. One inhalant abuse counselor told me, ``If it smells like a chemical, it can be abused.'' It is a silent epidemic because few adults appreciate the severity of the problem or how often it occurs. It is estimated one in five students have tried inhalants by the time they reach the eighth grade. The use of inhalants by children has nearly doubled in the last 10 years. Inhalants are the third most abused substance among teenagers, behind alcohol and tobacco. Inhalants are deadly. Inhalant vapors react with fatty tissues of the brain and literally dissolve those tissues. A one-time use of inhalants can cause instant and permanent brain damage, heart failure, kidney failure, liver failure, or death. The user can also suffer instant heart failure. This is known as sudden sniffing death syndrome. This means an abuser can die on the very first time he or she tries it or the 10th time or the 100th time that an individual sees fit to use an inhalant. In fact, according to a recent study by the National Native Health Consortium, ``inhaling has a higher risk of `instant death' than any other abused substance.'' Think of that: Inhalants have a higher risk of instant death, the first time, than any other abused substance. That is what happened last year to Theresa, an 18-year-old who lived in a rural western Alaska village. Last year Theresa was inhaling gasoline; shortly thereafter, her heart stopped. She was found outside in the near-zero temperature. Theresa was the youngest of five children and just a month shy of graduation. She was flown to the Fairbanks Memorial Hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival. Earlier this year in Pennsylvania, a teenaged driver with four teenaged passengers lost control of her car in broad daylight. The car hit a tree with such impact that all the passengers were killed. High levels of a chemical found in computer keyboard cleaners--think about this, computer keyboard cleaners--were found in the young driver's body. The medical examiner report cited impairment due to inhalant abuse as the cause of that crash. Mr. Haviland, the principal of the school that the five girls attended, said the teacher never suspected that the students were involved with inhalants. That is why this bill is so important. The most effective prevention against inhalant abuse is education. It is preventable. But educators must first know about inhalants before they can teach our kids of their dangers. My bill will amend section 4131 of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to allow States and communities the option to develop programs on inhalant abuse. Under my amendment, the principals, teachers, and counselors will be able to learn about inhalants and will have the option to develop educational programs to teach about inhalant abuse. There is no cost associated with this legislation. This bill makes fiscal sense. A 1993 study by the Alaska Indian Health Service revealed that a 19-year-old chronic inhalant abuser could have an average lifetime cost of up to $1.4 million. These are the costs of chronic medical care, substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation treatment, and social services. The costs go on and on. We can save those costs if we just prevent this type of abuse. The goal of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act is to save the lives of young people, but currently only illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are covered under the definitions of this act. This bill will help us solve the problem and save the lives of our youth. We support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. April 10, 1999 will mark the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (``TRA''). Today, I am submitting a concurrent resolution commemorating this important piece of legislation and the commitments that the United States made to the people of Taiwan. The resolution is cosponsored by Senator Lott, the majority leader, Senator Helms, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Thomas, the chairman of the East Asia Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Torricelli, also on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Burns, and Senator Kyl. A similar resolution is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Representative Dana Rohrabacher. Mr. President. I was not here when Congress passed the TRA in 1979, but I have great respect for the wisdom that those who proceeded me played in passing this enduring piece of legislation. As former Senator Dole said in commenting on the changes the Congress made to the legislation proposed by the Carter Administration: [The changes in the bill] ``were meant only to recognize the simple reality of U.S. concerns in the Asia-Pacific region and our desire for peace for an old and faithful ally.''--March 7, 1979. In talking to colleagues and former Administration officials who were here for the creation of the TRA, you get the sense that no one expected Taiwan to be around for very long. But Taiwan not only survived, she thrived. Taiwan turned into one of the Asian Tigers, and has managed to weather the Asian flu. She is a full-fledged multi-party democracy that respects human rights and civil liberties. She serves as a model of successful democratic reform. The positive changes in Taiwan are a tribute to the spirit and perseverance of her people, who have achieved an almost impossible dream in the view of many. The United States cannot take credit for Taiwan's achievements, but we can be proud of East Asia. So I think it is appropriate that we take up this resolution that commemorates the anniversary of this piece of legislation. Mr. President. The resolution praises the TRA for contributing to peace, security and stability in the Taiwan Strait. The resolution also praises the growth of democracy, human rights and civil liberties on Taiwan. And the resolution notes the successful role that the American Institute in Taiwan has played in sustaining and enhancing our relations with Taiwan. The resolution does express concern about several issues including the process for evaluating Taiwan's legitimate defense needs, the lack of high-level dialog between senior military officials on Taiwan and American defense officials regarding regional stability. The resolution also expresses Congress's grave concern over the possible threat to security in the Taiwan Strait from China's defense modernization and procurement as documented in the February 1, 1999, report to Congress by the Secretary of Defense on ``The Security Situation in the Taiwan Strait''. Mr. president. This resolution calls for the Congress to reaffirm our commitment to the TRA and to the specific guarantees to provide legitimate defense articles to Taiwan. The Resolution also expresses our grave concern over the threat to Taiwan from China's growing arsenal of nuclear and conventionally armed ballistic missiles, the movement to those missiles into a closer geographic proximity to Taiwan, and the effect that the buildup may have on stability in the Taiwan Strait. The resolution also encourages a high-level dialog with officials of Taiwan and our other East Asia allies concerning the best means to ensure peace and stability in East Asia. To provide the Congress with timely information to evaluate Taiwan's self-defense needs, this resolution asks the President to provide an annual report detailing the military balance on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Finally, this resolution notes that it should be United States policy to publicly support Taiwan's admission to the World Trade Organization on its own merits as well as to encourage other countries to adopt similar policies, without making such admission conditional on the previous or simultaneous admission of the People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization. Mr. President. I hope that the full Senate will have the opportunity to vote on this resolution in the near future.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with my distinguished colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, the Graduate Medical Education Technical Amendments Act of 1999. This legislation will alleviate unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 regarding Graduate Medical Education (GME). The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained important and necessary GME reform. However, a small number of the changes in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, have grave consequences for many residency programs, particularly for programs that have been training in ambulatory settings, are small, or who produce physicians to serve in rural areas. The impact has been disproportionately harmful to programs that: have already been training in ambulatory settings (because the hospitals in which they were located were not allowed to count the residents they had serving in community settings in the cap); are small, such as hospitals with only one residency program; and train physicians for practice in rural areas. The impact is especially damaging to family practice residency programs. Only family practice residents have been trained extensively out of the hospital and only family practice residencies were significantly harmed by this provision in the BBA. In fact, a recent survey indicates that 56 percent of family residency program directors believe that the BBA provisions will preclude their development of rural training sites. Senator Collins' and my legislation would include the following legislative remedies: Recalculate the IME and DME caps based on the number of interns and residents who were appointed by the approved medical residency training programs for FY 1996, whether they were being trained in the hospital or in the community; Change the cutoff date for adjusting the DME funding cap to September 30, 1999, to allow those programs already in the approval process for accreditation to continue to realization; and Expand the exception to the funding caps to include programs with separately accredited rural training tracks even if the sponsoring hospital is not located in a rural area, and for residency programs where a primary care training program is the only one offered in the hospital. This legislation is important for Alaska's first and only residency program. The Alaska Family Practice Residency is specifically designed to train physicians to practice medicine in rural Alaska. Alaska's rural health care problems are tough: 74% of Alaska is medically under-served. Many villages populated by 25-1000 individuals do not have access to physicians. Physician turn-over rate is high which makes it impossible for patients to establish long-term relationships with their physician to manage chronic disease or to do preventative medicine. The result is that bush Alaska has much higher rates of preventable diseases. This legislation is truly imperative to Alaska health care. While other residency programs have the luxury of educating their residents on rural health issues, for us it is a necessity. Mr. President, our legislation corrects a small deficiency in the BBA of 1997 that has had a large, unintended impact on programs training community-based and rural doctors. I hope my colleagues can join our efforts and support this important legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with my distinguished colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, the Graduate Medical Education Technical Amendments Act of 1999. This legislation will alleviate unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 regarding Graduate Medical Education (GME). The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained important and necessary GME reform. However, a small number of the changes in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, have grave consequences for many residency programs, particularly for programs that have been training in ambulatory settings, are small, or who produce physicians to serve in rural areas. The impact has been disproportionately harmful to programs that: have already been training in ambulatory settings (because the hospitals in which they were located were not allowed to count the residents they had serving in community settings in the cap); are small, such as hospitals with only one residency program; and train physicians for practice in rural areas. The impact is especially damaging to family practice residency programs. Only family practice residents have been trained extensively out of the hospital and only family practice residencies were significantly harmed by this provision in the BBA. In fact, a recent survey indicates that 56 percent of family residency program directors believe that the BBA provisions will preclude their development of rural training sites. Senator Collins' and my legislation would include the following legislative remedies: Recalculate the IME and DME caps based on the number of interns and residents who were appointed by the approved medical residency training programs for FY 1996, whether they were being trained in the hospital or in the community; Change the cutoff date for adjusting the DME funding cap to September 30, 1999, to allow those programs already in the approval process for accreditation to continue to realization; and Expand the exception to the funding caps to include programs with separately accredited rural training tracks even if the sponsoring hospital is not located in a rural area, and for residency programs where a primary care training program is the only one offered in the hospital. This legislation is important for Alaska's first and only residency program. The Alaska Family Practice Residency is specifically designed to train physicians to practice medicine in rural Alaska. Alaska's rural health care problems are tough: 74% of Alaska is medically under-served. Many villages populated by 25-1000 individuals do not have access to physicians. Physician turn-over rate is high which makes it impossible for patients to establish long-term relationships with their physician to manage chronic disease or to do preventative medicine. The result is that bush Alaska has much higher rates of preventable diseases. This legislation is truly imperative to Alaska health care. While other residency programs have the luxury of educating their residents on rural health issues, for us it is a necessity. Mr. President, our legislation corrects a small deficiency in the BBA of 1997 that has had a large, unintended impact on programs training community-based and rural doctors. I hope my colleagues can join our efforts and support this important legislation.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing--together with my good friend Senator Stevens--new legislation to ensure that the marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park remain open to the fisheries that have been conducted there for many, many years. For a number of years, the Park Service has attempted to seize authority over fisheries management in Glacier Bay from the State of Alaska, which holds title to the marine waters and submerged lands within Glacier Bay National Park. This is an infringement of the State's sovereignty under the constitutional doctrine of equal footing, as confirmed by Congress in the Submerged Lands Act, and the Alaska Statehood Act. As my colleagues should all be aware, commercial fisheries have been conducted in these waters for well over 100 years, since long before the federal government became interested in them. Subsistence fishing and gathering by local residents has been practiced for up to 9,000 years, and perhaps longer. Yet today, officials of the National Park Service want Glacier Bay off limits to those who have depended on it for their sustenance and livelihoods for generations. Most recently, agents of the Park Service harassed a number of commercial crab fishermen who were fishing in areas which have always been open to them. Some of these were areas which may be closed under legislation adopted last year, but for which the Park Service has not yet promulgated regulations to effect the closure. Although Park Service officials now say they merely asked for voluntary compliance and attempted to educate fishermen about their plans, the fishermen tell a different, and more sinister, story. This particular crab fishery is only six days long, with the first two days being crucial to a fisherman's financial success. Because of this, fishermen must work literally around the clock for the first 48 to 72 hours. After the first two days, their earning potential--even for a top fisherman--drops from almost $60,000 per day to less than $20,000. It is important to note that these are not large scale fisheries. We are talking about a small handful of fishermen, some working solely with their families. Out of the 14 vessels working in the Bay during the recent fishery, 11 were boarded--right in the middle of those crucial first two days-- by armed and intimidating Park Service agents. Many were either told they were in closed waters, or threatened that if they did not move, they would be prosecuted. Needless to say, these fishermen are law- abiding members of society, so they pulled up their fishing gear and moved, taking very serious financial losses as a result. Mr. President, let me ask you how difficult it would have been to write a letter before the season opened and send it to these 14 fishermen? How hard would it be to send a letter to 20 fishermen? or to 50? In other words, Mr. President, how hard would it have been to avoid such confrontational and damaging tactics? It would not have been hard at all, Mr. President, and the fact that the agency did not choose to do so is just one more example of how unfairly the Park Service has behaved to those who live and work in Alaska. It is time for this to stop, and to ensure that it does, I am today offering a simple, clean solution. First, the bill authorizes subsistence fishing and gathering under the existing federal governing authority for such activities. Second, the bill authorizes the State of Alaska to conduct its marine fisheries without interference, except a fishery for Dungeness crab, for which a compensation plan has already been adopted. And third, the bill authorizes the use of up to $2,000,000 per year--which the Park Service is already collecting but which it has failed to use for the purpose intended by Congress--to be used to pay damages to fishermen who were unfairly harmed. Mr. President, this is a matter of simple fairness. These are not new fisheries, but old ones--fisheries which throughout their long history have never caused a problem, and are today more tightly controlled than ever by State of Alaska law and regulation. Fishermen have caused no harm here. The only harm has been caused either by the arrogant demands of those who want the park to themselves, or those who are well-meaning but ignorant of the facts. It is time the former become better neighbors, and time for the latter to learn the truth. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing--together with my good friend Senator Stevens--new legislation to ensure that the marine waters of Glacier Bay National Park remain open to the fisheries that have been conducted there for many, many years. For a number of years, the Park Service has attempted to seize authority over fisheries management in Glacier Bay from the State of Alaska, which holds title to the marine waters and submerged lands within Glacier Bay National Park. This is an infringement of the State's sovereignty under the constitutional doctrine of equal footing, as confirmed by Congress in the Submerged Lands Act, and the Alaska Statehood Act. As my colleagues should all be aware, commercial fisheries have been conducted in these waters for well over 100 years, since long before the federal government became interested in them. Subsistence fishing and gathering by local residents has been practiced for up to 9,000 years, and perhaps longer. Yet today, officials of the National Park Service want Glacier Bay off limits to those who have depended on it for their sustenance and livelihoods for generations. Most recently, agents of the Park Service harassed a number of commercial crab fishermen who were fishing in areas which have always been open to them. Some of these were areas which may be closed under legislation adopted last year, but for which the Park Service has not yet promulgated regulations to effect the closure. Although Park Service officials now say they merely asked for voluntary compliance and attempted to educate fishermen about their plans, the fishermen tell a different, and more sinister, story. This particular crab fishery is only six days long, with the first two days being crucial to a fisherman's financial success. Because of this, fishermen must work literally around the clock for the first 48 to 72 hours. After the first two days, their earning potential--even for a top fisherman--drops from almost $60,000 per day to less than $20,000. It is important to note that these are not large scale fisheries. We are talking about a small handful of fishermen, some working solely with their families. Out of the 14 vessels working in the Bay during the recent fishery, 11 were boarded--right in the middle of those crucial first two days-- by armed and intimidating Park Service agents. Many were either told they were in closed waters, or threatened that if they did not move, they would be prosecuted. Needless to say, these fishermen are law- abiding members of society, so they pulled up their fishing gear and moved, taking very serious financial losses as a result. Mr. President, let me ask you how difficult it would have been to write a letter before the season opened and send it to these 14 fishermen? How hard would it be to send a letter to 20 fishermen? or to 50? In other words, Mr. President, how hard would it have been to avoid such confrontational and damaging tactics? It would not have been hard at all, Mr. President, and the fact that the agency did not choose to do so is just one more example of how unfairly the Park Service has behaved to those who live and work in Alaska. It is time for this to stop, and to ensure that it does, I am today offering a simple, clean solution. First, the bill authorizes subsistence fishing and gathering under the existing federal governing authority for such activities. Second, the bill authorizes the State of Alaska to conduct its marine fisheries without interference, except a fishery for Dungeness crab, for which a compensation plan has already been adopted. And third, the bill authorizes the use of up to $2,000,000 per year--which the Park Service is already collecting but which it has failed to use for the purpose intended by Congress--to be used to pay damages to fishermen who were unfairly harmed. Mr. President, this is a matter of simple fairness. These are not new fisheries, but old ones--fisheries which throughout their long history have never caused a problem, and are today more tightly controlled than ever by State of Alaska law and regulation. Fishermen have caused no harm here. The only harm has been caused either by the arrogant demands of those who want the park to themselves, or those who are well-meaning but ignorant of the facts. It is time the former become better neighbors, and time for the latter to learn the truth. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Without breaking into the colloquy, I wonder if I can have 5 seconds to introduce a bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 4, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Robert W. Gee to be an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy for Fossil Energy. For further information, please contact David Dye of the Committee staff at (202) 224-0624.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to clarify a production and printing problem that occurred with regard to the Congressional Record. On January 19, 1999, I, with my distinguished colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Gorton, introduced legislation to reorganize the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, the legislation we introduced, S. 186, was an incorrect draft. I reintroduced the correct draft as S. 253. However, through a glitch in the publishing of the Record, the incorrect language of the bill was again reproduced in the Record. The language appearing in today's record is the correct language of S. 253. This language is identical to the recommendation of the White Commission, the congressionally-mandated Commission structured to study the alignment of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Mr. President, I ask that the ``star print'' of S. 253, the Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999, be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Edgar Nollner Sr., a distinguished Alaskan and notable American hero who passed away recently at his home in Galena, Alaska at the age of 94. While Edgar Nollner is not a household name, many Americans may recall his heroic story of courage, teamwork and selflessness. In the winter of 1925, the Gold Rush town of Nome, Alaska was in the midst of a deadly diphtheria epidemic. Several cases of the contagious, bacterial disease had struck the small predominately Native population, some 1,400 of the towns residents. On January 21, an emergency Morse code message was transmitted from Nome pleading for a supply of diphtheria antitoxin serum. Twenty pounds of serum was found at an Anchorage hospital, but territorial governor Scot Bone would not risk flying the precious viles of serum from Anchorage to Fairbanks due to hazardous weather conditions. In fact, it is noted that the governor said he was willing to let the pilots risk their lives, but he would not risk the serum. Officials then determined that the serum would be shipped to Nenana via railroad; the serum arrived in the interior Alaska town six days after the initial plea was sent. It was from Nenana that the infamous 674 mile Serum Run Relay began, a race not for glory or riches, but a race to save the residents of Nome. Nome typically received most of its winter supplies by dog sled with deliveries taking a single musher 15 to 20 days to make a trip. Instead of a solo run, 20 dog-sled mushers, including Edgar Nollner, prepared to tackle the 70 degree below zero temperatures, frozen tundra and gale-force winds blowing up to 75 miles and hour. The mushers and dog teams were thus divided into shorter sprint segments to quicken the trip. Edgar Nollner was scheduled to run the 10th leg of the relay, 42 miles, but his younger brother, George, begged him to let him drive the last 18 miles of his leg. Edgar ran at night, covering the 24 miles from Whiskey Point to Galena in 3 hours. He reported that winds were so fierce, causing so much blowing snow, that he could not see his dogs or anything around him. His lead sled dog and trusted friend, Dixie, knew the trail and never faltered. The frozen serum arrived safely in Nome on February 2, 1925, in a mere 5 days and 7 hours; the epidemic was soon over. The brave men and scores of dogs were all hailed heroes. But for all the acclaim it received, the serum run marked the end of an era. With the increase of better airplanes, better schedules, and the insurgence of snow machines, the need for dog sleds was no longer essential. If the fear of diphtheria now seems antiquated, it is only because the Serum Run brought an end to the disease as a serious health threat in the United States. Edgar Nollner was just 20 years old when he left his trapper and fisherman lifestyle to selflessly join the others on the Serun Run. He was the son of a Missouri man who came to Alaska for the 1890's Gold Rush, and an Athabaskan mother, who made their home along the Yukon River in Galena. As the last surviving member of the serum-run relay mushers who risked their lives so that others may live, Edgar Nollner was truly a twentieth century hero. The townspeople in Galena are mourning Edgar's passing but his legacy remains. Records show that Mr. Nollner married twice, fathered 24 children and has more than 200 grandchildren and great grandchildren. Mr. President, I believe there can be no greater gift. To honor these brave men, the famous Serum Run Relay was reenacted in 1973, in an event know known as the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. The modern-day Iditarod covers more than 1,000 miles of frozen tundra from Anchorage to Nome and is now run annually in March. Edgar Nollner was both a hero and legend. I salute this rugged Alaskan who risked his life so that others could live--he epitomizes the true spirit of all Alaskans. His spirit, along with the 19 other brave Serum Run mushers will continue to run strong in every Iditarod. The final chapter of this dramatic saga is closed, but not forgotten.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the second of two bills of which passed the Senate last year with unanimous consent. The first bill which was introduced on February 12, 1999, amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), to provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Huna Totem Corporation, a village corporation created under that Act. The second bill provides for a similar land exchange between the Secretary and the Kake Tribal Corporation. Both of these bills will allow the Kake Tribal and Huna Totem Corporations to convey land needed as municipal watersheds in their surrounding communities to the Secretary in exchange for other Forest Service lands. Enactment of these bills will meet two objectives. First, the two corporations will finally be able to fully recognize the economic benefits promised to them under ANCSA. Second, the watersheds that supply the communities of Hoonah, Alaska and Kake, Alaska will be protected in order to provide safe water for those communities. The legislation I offer today clarifies several issues that were raised during the Committee hearings and mark-up last year. First, the legislation directs that the subsurface estates owned by Sealaska Corporation in the Huna and Kake exchange lands are exchanged for similar subsurface estates in the conveyed Forest Service lands. Second the substitute clarifies that these exchanges are to be done on an equal value basis. Both the Secretary of Agriculture and the corporations insisted on this provision. I believe this is critical, Mr. President, because both these bills provide that any timber derived from the newly acquired Corporation lands be processed in-state, a requirement that does not currently exist on the watershed lands the corporations are exchanging. Therefore, if this exchange simply were done on an acre-for-acre basis it is likely that the acreage the corporations are exchanging, without any timber export restrictions, would have a much higher value than what they would get in return. It is for this reason that these exchanges will not be done on an acre- for-acre basis. If it ends up that either party has to receive additional compensation, either in additional lands or in cash to equalize the value, then it is my hope this will be done in an expeditious way to allow the exchange to move forward within the times specified in the legislation. I believe these two pieces of legislation are in the best interest of the native corporations, the Alaska communities where the watersheds are located, and the Federal government. It is my intention to try and pass these bills out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at the earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bills be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the second of two bills of which passed the Senate last year with unanimous consent. The first bill which was introduced on February 12, 1999, amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), to provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Huna Totem Corporation, a village corporation created under that Act. The second bill provides for a similar land exchange between the Secretary and the Kake Tribal Corporation. Both of these bills will allow the Kake Tribal and Huna Totem Corporations to convey land needed as municipal watersheds in their surrounding communities to the Secretary in exchange for other Forest Service lands. Enactment of these bills will meet two objectives. First, the two corporations will finally be able to fully recognize the economic benefits promised to them under ANCSA. Second, the watersheds that supply the communities of Hoonah, Alaska and Kake, Alaska will be protected in order to provide safe water for those communities. The legislation I offer today clarifies several issues that were raised during the Committee hearings and mark-up last year. First, the legislation directs that the subsurface estates owned by Sealaska Corporation in the Huna and Kake exchange lands are exchanged for similar subsurface estates in the conveyed Forest Service lands. Second the substitute clarifies that these exchanges are to be done on an equal value basis. Both the Secretary of Agriculture and the corporations insisted on this provision. I believe this is critical, Mr. President, because both these bills provide that any timber derived from the newly acquired Corporation lands be processed in-state, a requirement that does not currently exist on the watershed lands the corporations are exchanging. Therefore, if this exchange simply were done on an acre-for-acre basis it is likely that the acreage the corporations are exchanging, without any timber export restrictions, would have a much higher value than what they would get in return. It is for this reason that these exchanges will not be done on an acre- for-acre basis. If it ends up that either party has to receive additional compensation, either in additional lands or in cash to equalize the value, then it is my hope this will be done in an expeditious way to allow the exchange to move forward within the times specified in the legislation. I believe these two pieces of legislation are in the best interest of the native corporations, the Alaska communities where the watersheds are located, and the Federal government. It is my intention to try and pass these bills out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at the earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bills be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce two similar bills both of which passed the Senate last year with unanimous consent. One of these bills amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), to provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Huna Totem Corporation, a village corporation created under that Act. The other bill provides for a similar land exchange between the Secretary and the Kake Tribal Corporation. Both of these bills will allow the Kake Tribal and Huna Totem Corporations to convey land needed as municipal watersheds in their surrounding communities to the Secretary in exchange for other Forest Service lands. Enactment of these bills will meet two objectives. First, the two corporations will finally be able to fully recognize the economic benefits promised to them under ANCSA. Second, the watersheds that supply the communities of Hoonah, Alaska and Kake, Alaska will be protected in order to provide safe water for those communities. The legislation I offer today clarifies several issues that were raised during the Committee hearings and mark-up last year. First, the legislation directs that the subsurface estates owned by Sealaska Corporation in the Huna and Kake exchange lands are exchanged for similar subsurface estates in the conveyed Forest Service lands. Second the substitute clarifies that these exchanges are to be done on an equal value basis. Both the Secretary of Agriculture and the corporations insisted on this provision. I believe this is critical, Mr. President, because both these bills provide that any timber derived from the newly acquired Corporation lands be processed in-state, a requirement that does not currently exist on the watershed lands the corporations are exchanging. Therefore, if this exchange simply were done on an acre-for-acre basis it is likely that the acreage the corporations are exchanging, without any timber export restrictions, would have a much higher value than what they would get in return. It is for this reason that these exchanges will not be done on an acre- for-acre basis. If it ends up that either party has to receive additional compensation, either in additional lands or in cash to equalize the value, then it is my hope this will be done in an expeditious way to allow the exchange to move forward within the times specified in the legislation. I believe these two pieces of legislation are in the best interest of the native corporations, the Alaska communities where the watersheds are located, and the Federal government. It is my intention to try and pass these bills out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at the earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce two similar bills both of which passed the Senate last year with unanimous consent. One of these bills amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), to provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Huna Totem Corporation, a village corporation created under that Act. The other bill provides for a similar land exchange between the Secretary and the Kake Tribal Corporation. Both of these bills will allow the Kake Tribal and Huna Totem Corporations to convey land needed as municipal watersheds in their surrounding communities to the Secretary in exchange for other Forest Service lands. Enactment of these bills will meet two objectives. First, the two corporations will finally be able to fully recognize the economic benefits promised to them under ANCSA. Second, the watersheds that supply the communities of Hoonah, Alaska and Kake, Alaska will be protected in order to provide safe water for those communities. The legislation I offer today clarifies several issues that were raised during the Committee hearings and mark-up last year. First, the legislation directs that the subsurface estates owned by Sealaska Corporation in the Huna and Kake exchange lands are exchanged for similar subsurface estates in the conveyed Forest Service lands. Second the substitute clarifies that these exchanges are to be done on an equal value basis. Both the Secretary of Agriculture and the corporations insisted on this provision. I believe this is critical, Mr. President, because both these bills provide that any timber derived from the newly acquired Corporation lands be processed in-state, a requirement that does not currently exist on the watershed lands the corporations are exchanging. Therefore, if this exchange simply were done on an acre-for-acre basis it is likely that the acreage the corporations are exchanging, without any timber export restrictions, would have a much higher value than what they would get in return. It is for this reason that these exchanges will not be done on an acre- for-acre basis. If it ends up that either party has to receive additional compensation, either in additional lands or in cash to equalize the value, then it is my hope this will be done in an expeditious way to allow the exchange to move forward within the times specified in the legislation. I believe these two pieces of legislation are in the best interest of the native corporations, the Alaska communities where the watersheds are located, and the Federal government. It is my intention to try and pass these bills out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at the earliest opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.