Frank Murkowski

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, I am today introducing legislation to allow the State of Alaska to take responsibility for regulating small (5 megawatts or less) hydroelectric projects located in Alaska. This legislation is identical to section 1 of S. 439 in the 105th Congress, which was reported unanimously by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and was passed unanimously by the Senate. Unfortunately, because the Senate passed the legislation late in the session, the House did not have time to act before Congress adjourned. Let me describe why this legislation is needed. Simply put, FERC's licensing process is too expensive and too cumbersome for many small hydroelectric projects in Alaska. For a large project costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars the burden of obtaining a FERC license is large, but relatively small as compared to the total cost. However, for a small project located in a remote region of Alaska, FERC's licensing process is a major problem. All too often, the burden of the licensing process alone dooms an otherwise economically viable and environmentally beneficial project. And those small hydro projects it does not doom, FERC's process increases significantly their cost--which is just passed on to consumers in terms of higher electricity rates. For other States this may not be very significant, but it is for Alaska. Alaska already has the most expensive electricity in the United States. Alaska's average residential price of electricity is 36 percent higher than the U.S. average, and in some parts of Alaska the residential price reaches a stunning 43 cents per kilowatt hour--5 times the U.S. average. Why so expensive? Primarily because it is produced by diesel generators, which are both relatively inefficient and use expensive fuel. Compared to diesel generators, hydroelectric power is much less expensive. It is important to note that hydroelectric power is much more environmentally benign as compared to diesel-fired generation: Hydroelectric generation produces no air emissions as does diesel-fired generation. Thus, anything we can do to promote the construction of hydroelectric projects will also help the environment of Alaska. In this connection, it is also important to note that this legislation does not exempt Alaska's small hydro projects from regulation. Instead, it allows the State of Alaska to regulate in lieu of FERC. I ask: Who is more interested in the environment of Alaska-- Alaskans or a distant FERC? Moreover, the legislation allows Alaska to regulate only after FERC has determined that the State has in place a regulatory program which ``protects the public interest . . . and the environment to the same extent provided by . . . [the FERC].'' Finally, the legislation specifically requires the full application of all ``Federal environmental, natural resources, or cultural resources protection laws. . . . '' Thus, enactment of this legislation will fully protect the environment and the public interest. In summary, if enacted this legislation will benefit both Alaska's environment and its economy.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I ask for clarification relative to submitting statements in the Record and having them printed? What day would they be printed in the Record, assuming that we finish Thursday? The Friday Record?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the leader.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby submit for publication in the Congressional Record, the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Rules of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources general rules Rule 1. The Standing Rules of the Senate as supplemented by these rules, are adopted as the rules of the Committee and its Subcommittees. meetings of the committee Rule 2. (a) The Committee shall meet on the third Wednesday of each month while the Congress is in session for the purpose of conducting business, unless, for the convenience of Members, the Chairman shall set some other day for a meeting. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman as he may deem necessary. (b) Business meetings of any Subcommittee may be called by the Chairman of such Subcommittee, Provided, That no Subcommittee meeting or hearing other than a field hearing, shall be scheduled or held concurrently with a full Committee meeting or hearing, unless a majority of the Committee concurs in such concurrent meeting or hearing. open hearings and meetings Rule 3. (a) Hearings and business meetings of the Committee or any Subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or such Subcommittee by majority vote orders a closed hearing or meeting. (b) A transcript shall be kept of each hearing of the Committee or any Subcommittee. (c) A transcript shall be kept of each business meeting of the Committee or any Subcommittee unless a majority of the Committee or Subcommittee involved agrees that some other form of permanent record is preferable. hearing procedure Rule 4. (a) Public notice shall be given of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be held by the Committee or any Subcommittee at least one week in advance of such hearing unless the Chairman of the full Committee or the Subcommittee involved determines that the hearing is non- controversial or that special circumstances require expedited procedures and a majority of the Committee or the Subcommittee involved concurs. In no case shall a hearing be conducted with less than twenty-four hours notice. (b) Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or any Subcommittee shall file with the Committee or Subcommittee, at least 24 hours in advance of the hearing, a written statement of his or her testimony in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee prescribes. (c) Each member shall be limited to five minutes in the questioning of any witness until such time as all Members who so desire have had an opportunity to question the witness. (d) The Chairman and ranking Minority Member or the ranking Majority and Minority Members present at the hearing may each appoint one Committee staff member to question each witness. Such staff member may question the witness only after all Members present have completed their questioning of the witness or at such other time as the Chairman and the ranking Majority and Minority Members present may agree. business meeting agenda Rule 5. (a) A legislative measure or subject shall be included on the agenda of the next following business meeting of the full Committee or any Subcommittee if a written request for such inclusion has been filed with the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee at least one week prior to such meeting. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the authority of the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee to include legislative measures or subjects on the Committee or Subcommittee agenda in the absence of such request. (b) The agenda for any business meeting of the Committee or any Subcommittee shall be provided to each Member and made available to the public at least three days prior to such meeting, and no new items may be added after the agenda is so published except by the approval of a majority of the Members of the Committee or Subcommittee. The Staff Director shall promptly notify absent Members of any action taken by the Committee or any Subcommittee on matters not included on the published agenda. quorums Rule 6. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d), seven Members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business of the Committee. (b) No measure or matter shall be ordered reported from the Committee unless eleven Members of the Committee are actually present at the time such action is taken. (c) Except as provided in subsection (d), one-third of the Subcommittee Members shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business of any Subcommittee. (d) One Member shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting a hearing or taking testimony on any measure or matter before the Committee or any Subcommittee. voting Rule 7. (a) A rollcall of the Members shall be taken upon the request of any Member. Any Member who does not vote on any rollcall at the time the roll is called, may vote (in person or by proxy) on that rollcall at any later time during the same business meeting. (b) Proxy voting shall be permitted on all matters, except that proxies may not be counted for the purpose of determining the presence of a quorum. Unless further limited, a proxy shall be exercised only upon the date for which it is given and upon the items published in the agenda for that date. (c) Each Committee report shall set forth the vote on the motion to report the measure or matter involved. Unless the Committee directs otherwise, the report will not set out any votes on amendments offered during Committee consideration. Any Member who did not vote on any rollcall shall have the opportunity to have his position recorded in the appropriate Committee record or Committee report. (d) The Committee vote to report a measure to the Senate shall also authorize the staff of the Committee to make necessary technical and clerical corrections in the measure. subcommittees Rule 8. (a) The number of Members assigned to each Subcommittee and the division between Majority and Minority Members shall be fixed by the Chairman in consultation with the ranking Minority Member. (b) Assignment of Members to Subcommittees shall, insofar as possible, reflect the preferences of the Members. No Member will receive assignment to a second Subcommittee until, in order of seniority, all Members of the Committee have chosen assignments to one Subcommittee, and no Member shall receive assignment to a third Subcommittee until, in order of seniority, all Members have chosen assignments to two Subcommittees. (c) Any Member of the Committee may sit with any Subcommittee during its hearings and business meetings but shall not have the authority to vote on any matters before the Subcommittee unless he is a Member of such Subcommittee. sworn testimony and financial statements Rule 9. Witnesses in Committee or Subcommottee hearings may be required to give testimony under oath whenever the Chairman or ranking Minority Member of the Committee or Subcommittee deems such to be necessary. At any hearing to confirm a Presidential nomination, the testimony of the nominee and at the request of any Member, any other witness shall be under oath. Every nominee shall submit a statement of his financial interests, including those of his spouse, his minor children, and other members of his immediate household, on a form approved by the Committee, which shall be sworn to by the nominee as to its completeness and accuracy. A statement of every nominee's financial interest shall be made public on a form approved by the Committee, unless the Committee in executive session determines that special circumstances require a full or partial exception to this rule. Members of the Committee are urged to make public a statement of their financial interests in the form required in the case of Presidential nominees under this rule. confidential testimony Rule 10. No confidential testimony taken by or confidential material presented to the Committee or any Subcommittee, or any report of the proceedings of a closed Committee or Subcommittee hearing or business meeting, shall be made public, in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless authorized by a majority of the Members of the Committee at a business meeting called for the purpose of making such a determination. defamatory statements Rule 11. Any person whose name is mentioned or who is specifically identified in, or who believes that testimony or other evidence presented at, an open Committee or Subcommittee hearing tends to defame him or otherwise adversely affect his reputation may file with the Committee for its consideration and action a sworn statement of facts relevant to such testimony or evidence. broadcasting of hearings or meetings Rule 12. Any meeting or hearing by the Committee or any Subcommittee which is open to the public may be covered in whole or in part by television broadcast, radio broadcast, or still photography. Photographers and reporters using mechanical recording, filming, or broadcasting devices shall position their equipment so as not to interfere with the seating, vision, and hearing of Members and staff on the dais or with the orderly process of the meeting or hearing. amending the rules Rule 13. These rules may be amended only by vote of a majority of all the Members of the Committee in a business meeting of the Committee: Provided, That no vote may be taken on any proposed amendment unless such amendment is reproduced in full in the Committee agenda for such meeting at least three days in advance of such meeting.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and the Majority Leader Mr. Lott, Senator Baucus, Senator Cochran, Senator Inhofe, Senator Campbell, and Senator Inouye, to introduce legislation to permanently authorize and expand the Medicare and Medicaid direct collections demonstration program under section 405 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This Act will end much of the red tape and bureauracy for IHS facilities involved with Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, and will mean more Medicaid and Medicare dollars to Native health facilities to use for improving health care. Our bill will allow Native hospitals to collect Medicare and Medicaid fund directly from the Health Care Financing Administration instead of having to go through the maze of regulations mandated by IHS. This bill is an expansion of a current demonstration project that includes Bristol Bay Health Corporation of Dillingham, Alaska: the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation of Sitka, Alaska; the Mississippi Choctaw Health Center of Philadelphia, Mississippi: and the Choctaw Tribe of Durant, Oklahoma. All of the participants in the demonstration program--as well as the Department of Health and Human Service and the Indian Health Services report that the program is a great success. HHS Secretary Donna Shalala stated in a letter to Senator John McCain on July 23, 1996, that the program has: Dramatically increased collections for Medicare and Medicaid services, which in turn has provided badly-needed revenues for Indian and Alaska Native health care: Sigificantly reduced the turn-around time between billing and the receipt of payment for Medicare and Medicaid services: and, Increased the administrative efficiency of the participating health facilities by empowering them to track their own Medicare and Medicaid billings and collections. In her letter, Secretary Shalala also mentions that the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation has been able to make ``great strides in upgrading the health facilities'' as a result of increased collections brought on by its participation in the demonstration program. In 1998, when the demonstration program was about to expire, Congress extended it through FY 2001. This extension has allowed the participants to continue their direct billing and collection efforts and has provided Congress with additional time to consider whether to permanently authorize the program. It is time to recognize the benefits of the demonstration program by enacting legislation that would permanently authorize it and expand it to other eligible tribal participants.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and the Majority Leader Mr. Lott, Senator Baucus, Senator Cochran, Senator Inhofe, Senator Campbell, and Senator Inouye, to introduce legislation to permanently authorize and expand the Medicare and Medicaid direct collections demonstration program under section 405 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This Act will end much of the red tape and bureauracy for IHS facilities involved with Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, and will mean more Medicaid and Medicare dollars to Native health facilities to use for improving health care. Our bill will allow Native hospitals to collect Medicare and Medicaid fund directly from the Health Care Financing Administration instead of having to go through the maze of regulations mandated by IHS. This bill is an expansion of a current demonstration project that includes Bristol Bay Health Corporation of Dillingham, Alaska: the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation of Sitka, Alaska; the Mississippi Choctaw Health Center of Philadelphia, Mississippi: and the Choctaw Tribe of Durant, Oklahoma. All of the participants in the demonstration program--as well as the Department of Health and Human Service and the Indian Health Services report that the program is a great success. HHS Secretary Donna Shalala stated in a letter to Senator John McCain on July 23, 1996, that the program has: Dramatically increased collections for Medicare and Medicaid services, which in turn has provided badly-needed revenues for Indian and Alaska Native health care: Sigificantly reduced the turn-around time between billing and the receipt of payment for Medicare and Medicaid services: and, Increased the administrative efficiency of the participating health facilities by empowering them to track their own Medicare and Medicaid billings and collections. In her letter, Secretary Shalala also mentions that the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation has been able to make ``great strides in upgrading the health facilities'' as a result of increased collections brought on by its participation in the demonstration program. In 1998, when the demonstration program was about to expire, Congress extended it through FY 2001. This extension has allowed the participants to continue their direct billing and collection efforts and has provided Congress with additional time to consider whether to permanently authorize the program. It is time to recognize the benefits of the demonstration program by enacting legislation that would permanently authorize it and expand it to other eligible tribal participants.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask consent to ask the majority leader a point of clarification.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. If we reference another Senator's remarks in our statements, would we have to get that other Senator's consent in order to submit our statement, then, for the Record?

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 President's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget. The committee will hear testimony from the following: 1. The Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday, February 25, 1999, beginning at 9 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 2. The Forest Service on Thursday, February 25, 1999, beginning at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 3. The Department of the Interior on Tuesday, March 2, 1999, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765, Amie Brown, staff assistant at (202) 224-6170, or Jo Meuse, staff assistant at (202) 224-4756.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. In conclusion, I don't care much about Saddam's point of view, but from the point of view of this Senator from Alaska, what this program does is allow Saddam to use his increased oil capacity to smuggle oil for hard cash and free up resources he can use to finance his weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's cash flow is oil. The smuggling is documented. The displacement issue is harder to track, but Saddam's war machine is still working and his troops are still fit. Let me take issue with the definition of ``humanitarian supplies.'' The most recent U.N.-approved plan would allow Saddam to spend this oil-for-food money, and I think it is interesting to reflect where is he spending his money. Let's look at it, because I think it counters Sandy Berger's remarks that this is going for ``humanitarian'' purposes: $300 million for petroleum equipment; $409 million for electricity networks; $126 million for telecommunication systems; $120 million to buy trucks, repair the railway system, and build food warehouses; $180 million for agriculture equipment, including pesticides. What is the humanitarian goal in guaranteeing an uninterrupted power supply for Saddam's poison gas facilities? What is the humanitarian goal in making sure his elite guards can communicate with each other? And finally, with a new emphasis on building an effective Iraq opposition, I wonder how an opposition can take root when Saddam is able, through the Oil-for-Food Program, to take care of his citizens' basic needs? The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, and I will be holding a joint hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Energy Committee next week to ask the administration these questions. I have asked Sandy Berger to come up and defend his arguments, along with Secretary Richardson and Under Secretary Pickering. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excellent analysis of the various proposals for changing the sanctions by Patrick Clawson from the Washington Institute.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I don't have time to go into that in depth, but let me remind my colleagues of a few things. One, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 passed in 1991 at the end of the Persian Gulf War requires that international economic sanctions, including an embargo on the sale of oil from Iraq, remain in place until Iraq discloses and destroys its weapons of mass destruction programs and capabilities and undertakes unconditionally never to resume such activities. But the teeth in Resolution 687 have effectively been pulled out one- by-one with the introduction and then continued expansion of the so- called oil-for-food exception to the sanctions: In 1995, UNSCR 986 allowed Iraq to sell $2 billion worth of oil every 6 months. Iraq produced 1.2 million barrels per day in 1997. In 1997, UNSCR 1153 doubled the offer to $5.2 billion in oil every 6 months. Iraq is now producing 2.5 million barrels of oil. In 1999, United States, France, and Saudi Arabia will offer varying plans on removing the limit on how much oil Iraq can sell and for what purpose. This means that Iraq's oil production of 2.5 million barrels per day equals--their production now equals--the prewar production levels in the year preceding Desert Storm. Iraq's export earnings total $10.4 billion, with 95 percent attributed to oil, which is Iraq's only significant identifiable cash flow. Iraq's imports that same year were only $6.6 billion. The President's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, takes issue with my characterization of the U.S. proposal. In a Washington Post editorial, he said that under the Oil-for-Food Program: We prevent Saddam from spending his nation's most valuable treasure on what he cares about most--rebuilding his military arsenal--and force him to spend it on what he cares about least--the people of Iraq. From Saddam's point of view, that makes the program part of the sanctions regime. I ask unanimous consent that editorial in the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, first of all, I want to raise with my colleagues two issues that revolve around energy security. The first issue is the state of the domestic oil industry and the second issue is the Oil-for-Food Program for Iraq. I think that this marks the first departure from the debate on the impeachment, and I hope the Presiding Officer will find it refreshing. Last week, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I chair, held a hearing to review the state of the domestic petroleum industry, and to assess the threat to our economic security from our growing dependence on foreign oil. The domestic oil industry in the United States is in serious trouble. Companies are laying off workers in droves. In my State of Alaska, British Petroleum, just announced the layoff of some 600 workers, and another one of our major oil companies lost somewhere in the area of just under $800 million in the last quarter of 1998. Exploration and drilling budgets are way down. Drilling contractors have been cut to the bone. Marginal and stripper wells are being shut in. These are production capabilities, Mr. President, that, once lost, will unlikely be regained. These, to a large degree, represent an ongoing operating petroleum reserve--one might conclude a strategic petroleum reserve--because while they are small, they are substantial in their numbers and contribute to domestic production. Now, to quote a recent report by the John S. Herold Company, 1998 was a ``catastrophe'' for the U.S. oil industry, ``nothing short of murderous for investors'' in that industry. We are seeing mergers and consolidations, significant implications for the Nation's energy security, and certainly U.S. jobs--30 merged companies alone last year. This situation in the oil industry is interesting, as we look at the commodities in this country. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, the agricultural industry--production, livestock, hogs, beef--the farmers can hardly raise them anymore. Many aspects of the agricultural industry are under water. This is true of the timber industry. It is true of the steel industry. It is true of the mining industry, and certainly true of the oil and gas industry. So as we reflect on the prosperity of this country, it is interesting to note the job losses in the commodities industries of this country-- and one has to wonder when it is going to catch up with itself. Of course, we enjoy low gasoline prices when we fill our car or boat, low heating oil prices when we warm our home, and low inflation due in large measure to low oil prices. Let's recognize where it is. But a decimated U.S. oil industry creates a risk to consumers, to the economy, to our national energy security. And we only have to look back at history. Some say we learn from history, and some say not much. Well, we recall the 1973 Arab oil embargo when we were only 36 percent dependent on foreign imported oil. That had a devastating impact on consumers and the economy. We saw oil shortages, and long lines at the gas stations. Many people have forgotten that timeframe--soaring prices, double-digit inflation, and an economy put into recession. What was the prime rate at that time? Well, the prime rate was 20.5 percent in 1980. Inflation was in the area of 11 percent--double-digit. If it happened today, we could be hit even harder. And we are getting set up for it because we are in worse shape today than we were in 1973. Since 1973, our foreign dependence has grown by leaps and bounds. U.S. crude oil production dropped by one-third. U.S. oil imports--oil imports--soared by two-thirds. Today, U.S. foreign oil dependence is 56 percent, compared to 36 percent back in 1973. Our excessive foreign oil dependence puts our national energy security interests at stake and hence our national security at stake. We can't forget that the United States went to war in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened the world oil supplies. Part of that was our supply. In 1995, President Clinton issued a Presidential finding that imports of oil threatened our national security, and a short time ago the U.S. bombed Iraq because Saddam continues to threaten the stability in the Persian Gulf. Well, it is fair to say, Mr. President, if we do nothing, what will happen: We know things are going to get worse. The Department of Energy projects in the year 2010 U.S. foreign dependence will hit about 68 percent. That means we will be depending on foreign sources for 68 percent of our oil supply. I don't think we should put our trust in foreign oil-producing nations that have their interests in mind, not ours. I plan to work closely with the small and independent producers to develop a solution to this crisis. Already I have cosponsored Senate bill 325, a bill introduced by my colleague from Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, that would amend the Tax Code to add marginal producers. I will work as a member of the Finance Committee to consider this and see it is adopted. I also intend, with Senators from producing States, to consider a non-tax means to assist domestic production through regulatory and land access issues. Second, I want to talk about oil-for-food and our relations with Iraq. This deals with our energy security; that is, our U.S. policy towards Iraq, specifically, the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program. Six weeks have passed since President Clinton ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. What has Saddam's regime done since then? They have shot at U.S. fighter planes on almost a daily basis. They have challenged Kuwait's right to exist. They have demanded compensation for U.N. crimes against Iraq--isn't that ironic. They have demanded an end to sanctions and no-fly zones. They have reiterated that no weapons inspectors will be allowed to return. That is a pretty bold statement. Now, what policy initiative has the Clinton administration launched to deal with Saddam's defiance? U.S. officials offered to eliminate the ceiling on the Oil-for-Food Program, a de facto ending of the sanctions on oil exports. My views on the absurdity to this proposal were included in a recent Washington Post op-ed, and I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will ask the administration to take a different tact to tighten, rather than loosen, the Oil-for-Food Program, to veto U.N. plans that allow Saddam to use this money to finance nonhumanitarian purchases, and to strengthen oil interdiction and inspection operations, including adopting something like the ``no-fly'' zone with a ``no-oil'' vessel zone. Only by taking these measures can the U.N. finally cripple Saddam's regime and increase energy security for all Americas. If we cut off Saddam's oil supply, we will bring him to his knees. That is the only way it will happen. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to comment on the Department of the Interior s Mineral Management Service proposed oil valuation rule. Earlier this week, speaking with regard to the Administration's FY 2000 budget, Secretary Babbitt said, ``We have met, and talked, and talked, and talked,'' about the proposed rule. But I submit that the only talking done by MMS has been at industry and at Congress, not with them. Mr. President, the proposed rule by MMS was unfair last year and it remains unfair. Babbitt has declared that talks are ``over'' and that MMS is determined to issue its rule in June, when the Congressional moratorium expires. This is simply unconscionable. The domestic oil industry is on its knees right now. But, again, this action by Interior is symptomatic of Administration attacks on the domestic energy industry. The federal government should work to save marginal producers, not put them out of business. Yet that is just what Interior is doing by issuing an unfair royalty rule at a time when producers can least afford it. I would ask Secretary Babbitt the following question: How many royalties can a bankrupt industry pay? I would also ask him if this rule is truly about raising revenue, or is it another Administration scheme to drive petroleum producers out of business. After all, 100 percent of zero is zero. For the record, Mr. President, I will be speaking to MMS and looking into this flawed royalty rule. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have up to 10 minutes to make a statement.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the Presiding Officer a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the full Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to review the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The hearing will take place on Thursday, February 4, 1999, at 10 a.m. in room SD-106 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 of the committee staff at (202) 224-6969.

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 Tuesday, February 2, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Carolyn L. Huntoon to be an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy for Environmental Management. For further information, please contact David Dye of the committee staff at (202) 224-0624. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the five heros who perished in the Scotch Cap Lighthouse disaster of April 1, 1946--five Coast Guardsmen who gave their lives so that others would survive. The lighthouse keeper was Chief Boatswain's Mate Anthony Lawrence Petit. His crew included Fireman 1st Class Jack Colvin, Seaman 1st Class Dewey Dykstra, Motor Machinist's Mate 2nd Class Leonard Pickering, and Seaman 1st Class Paul James Ness. Lighthouses will always have a place in our history. They have warned mariners of danger, their crews have rescued survivors in the worst conditions imaginable, and their brilliant lamps have comforted and reassured those who are bound homeward at last. In 1903, Scotch Cap Light Station was the first light put in place on the outside coast of Alaska. Located at the western end of Unimak Island, approximately 425 miles southwest of Anchorage, the light marks the entrance to Unimak Pass. Its only contact with the outside world was--every three months or so--a visit from a buoytender bringing supplies. It was, and is, one of the most isolated places imaginable, especially in the winter, and its hardships were legendary--one lighthouse keeper froze both his hands just trying to go from the lighthouse tower to his quarters during a blizzard. It was so hazardous that no families were allowed, and in the early days, lighthouse keepers were allowed a full year off for every three years they spent on the island. In 1940, the original building was replaced by a brand-new, reinforced-concrete structure built on a bluff near the shore, raising the light to 90 feet over the ocean, and protected by a concrete sea wall. But it wasn't enough. The disaster began early, on April l, 1946. At 1:30 a.m., the crew woke to an earthquake lasting about 30 seconds, strong enough to knock things off shelves. After the quake, the watchstander at a radio- direction-finding (RDF) installation--built a little farther up the hill during World War II--radioed the lighthouse crew and was told there was no major damage. Then, just before two o'clock in the morning, a second quake hit. The second tremor was expected, but not the million-ton wall of water--a tsunami--that quickly followed it. The RDF station logbook reported: Terrific roaring from ocean heard, followed immediately by terrific sea, top of which rose above cliff and struck station, causing considerable damages.'' The watchstander again used his radio to contact the lighthouse. This time, there was no reply. This time, he wrote in the logbook: Light extinguished and horn silent.'' The wave from the second earthquake is now estimated to have been over 100 feet high. It completely erased the concrete lighthouse, killing the five crewmen instantly, and leaving only wreckage. The bodies of Chief Anthony Petit and his crew were gone. They washed ashore again a few days later, identifiable only by their bridgework and jewelry. Chief Anthony Lawrence Petit was just a man--an ordinary man--but his life and death offer a glimpse at the thousands of ordinary men and women who join the Coast Guard and serve their fellow citizens in extraordinary ways. He was born and raised on Michigan's Upper Peninsula, in the town of Hancock, on a ship canal crossing the Keweenaw Peninsula. As a boy, he would have known the ships well, along with the Coast Guard buoy tenders and lighthouses that kept them safe. Petit enlisted in the Coast Guard as a young man in 1926. He never married, and served faithfully in the Coast Guard for the next 20 years. And we know that just before his final transfer to Scotch Cap, he was quoted saying, ``I hope to serve at as many Coast Guard ships and stations as I can before I retire in ten years.'' We know that in the end, he died doing the job he loved; keeping the light burning for those in peril on the sea. And we know his life was not wasted, nor forgotten--and we celebrate the christening of the USCGC Anthony Petit this 30th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1999.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, January 27, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the impacts on coastal states communities of off-shore activity. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Kelly Johnson at (202) 224-4971. committee on energy and natural resources

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 state of the petroleum industry. The hearing will take place on Thursday, January 28, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Those who wish to testify or submit a written statement should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Julia McCaul or Howard Useem at (202) 224-8115 or Daniel Kish at (202) 224- 8276.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleague from Washington, Senator Slade Gorton, in introducing legislation that will go far in improving the consistency, predictability and coherency of case law in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Our bill, The Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999, adopts the recommendations of a Congressionally-mandated Commission that studied the alignment of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Retired Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White, chaired the scholarly Commission. The Commission's Report, released last December, calls for a division of the Ninth Circuit into three regionally based adjudicative divisions--the Northern, Middle, and Southern. Each of these regional divisions would maintain a majority of its judges within its region. Each division would have exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the judicial districts within its region. Further, each division would function as a semi-autonomous decisional unit. To resolve conflicts that may develop between regions, a Circuit Division for Conflict Correction would replace the current limited and ineffective en banc system. Lastly, the Circuit would remain intact as an administrative unit, functioning as it now does. It is important to note that the Commission adopted the arguments that I and several other Senators have put forth to justify a complete division of the Ninth Circuit--Circuit population, record caseloads, and inconsistency in judicial decisions. However, the Commission rejected an administrative division because it believed it would ``deprive the courts now in the Ninth Circuit of the administrative advantages afforded by the present circuit configuration and deprive the West and the Pacific seaboard of a means for maintaining uniform federal law in that area.'' While I don't necessarily reach the same conclusion as the Commission (that an administrative division of the Ninth Circuit is not warranted), I strongly agree with the Committee's conclusion that the restructuring of the Ninth Circuit as proposed in the Commission's Report will ``increase the consistency and coherence of the law, maximize the likelihood of genuine collegiality, establish an effective procedure for maintaining uniform decisional law within the circuit, and relate the appellate forum more closely to the region it serves.'' Mr. President, swift Congressional action is needed. One need only look at the contours of the Ninth Circuit to see the need for this reorganization. Stretching from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border, past the tropics of Hawaii and across the International Dateline to Guam and the Mariana Islands, by any means of measurement, the Ninth Circuit is the largest of all U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Ninth Circuit serves a population of more than 49 million people, well over a third more than the next largest Circuit. By 2010, the Census Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit's population will be more than 63 million--a 40 percent increase in just 13 years, which inevitably will create an even more daunting caseload. Because of its massive size, there often results a decrease in the ability of judges to keep abreast of legal developments within the Ninth Circuit. This unwieldy caseload creates an inconsistency in Constitutional interpretation. In fact, Ninth Circuit cases have an extraordinarily high reversal rate by the Supreme Court. (During the Supreme Court's 1996-97 session, the Supreme Court overturned 95% of the Ninth Circuit cases heard by the Court.) This lack of Constitutional consistency discourages settlements and leads to unnecessary litigation. Ninth Circuit Judge Diramuid O'Scannlain described the problem as follows: An appellate court must function as a unified body, and it must speak with a unified voice. It must maintain and shape a coherent body of law * * *. As the number of opinions increase, we judges risk losing the ability to keep track of precedents and the ability to know what our circuit's law is. In short, bigger is not better. The legislation that Senator Gorton and I introduce today is a sensible reorganization of the Ninth Circuit. The Northern Division of the Ninth Circuit would join Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho. This proposal reflects legislation I introduced in the last Congress which created a new Twelfth Circuit consisting of the States of the Northwest. Like my previous legislation, the Commission's report will go far in creating regional commonality and greater consistency and dependency in legal decisions. However, it is my strong suggestion that when the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings on this legislation, certain modifications be closely examined: 1. Elimination of the requirement that judges within a region are required to rotate to other regions of the Circuit; 2. Adjustment of the regional alignments to include Hawaii, the Mariana Islands and the Territory of Guam in the Northern Region; and 3. Shortening the period in which the Federal Judicial Center conducts a study of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ninth Circuit divisions from eight years to three years. Mr. President, Congress has waited long enough to correct the problems of the Ninth Circuit. The 49 million residents of the Ninth Circuit are the persons that suffer. Many wait years before cases are heard and decided, prompting many to forego the entire appellate process. The Ninth Circuit has become a circuit where justice is not swift and not always served. Mr. President, we have known the problem of the Ninth Circuit for a long time. It's time to solve the problem. The Commission's recommendations, as reflected in our legislation, is a good first start. I hope we can resolve this issue this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleague from Washington. Senator Slade Gorton, in introducing legislation that will go far in improving the consistency, predictability and coherency of case law in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Our bill, The Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999, adopts the recommendations of a congressionally-mandated Commission that studied the alignment of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Retired Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White, chaired the scholarly Commission. The Commission's Report, released last December, calls for a division of the Ninth Circuit into three regionally based adjudicative divisions--the Northern, Middle, and Southern. Each of these regional divisions would maintain a majority of its judges within its region. Each division would have exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the judicial districts within its region. Further, each division would function as a semi-autonomous decisional unit. To resolve conflicts that may develop between regions, a Circuit Division for Conflict Correction would replace the current limited and ineffective en banc system. Lastly, the Circuit would remain intact as an administrative unit, functioning as it now does. It is important to note that the Commission adopted the arguments that I and several other Senators have put forth to justify a complete division of he Ninth Circuit--Circuit population, record caseloads, and inconsistency in judicial decisions. However, the Commission rejected an administrative division because it believed it would ``deprive the courts now in the Ninth Circuit of the administrative advantages afforded by the present circuit configuration and deprive the West and the Pacific seaboard of a means for maintaining uniform federal law in that area.'' While I don't necessarily reach the same conclusion as the Commission (that an administrative division of the Ninth Circuit is not warranted), I strongly agree with the Committee's conclusion that the restructuring of the Ninth Circuit as proposed in the Commission's Report will ``increase the consistency and coherence of the law, maximize the likelihood of genuine collegiality, establish an effective procedure for maintaining uniform decisional law within the circuit, and relate the appellate forum more closely to the region it serves.'' Mr. President, swift congressional action is needed. One need only look at the contours of the Ninth Circuit to see the need for this reorganization. Stretching from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border, past the tropics of Hawaii and across the International Dateline to Guam and the Mariana Islands, by any means of measurement, the Ninth Circuit is the largest of all U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Ninth Circuit serves a population of more than 49 million people, well over a third more than the next largest circuit. By 2010, the Census Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit's population will be more 63 million--a 40-percent increase in just 13 years, which inevitably will create an even more daunting caseload. Because of its massive size, there often results a decrease in the ability of judges to keep abreast of legal developments within the Ninth Circuit. This unwieldy caseload creates an inconsistency in Constitutional interpretation. In fact, Ninth Circuit cases have an extraordinarily high reversal rate by the Supreme Court. (During the Supreme Court's 1996-97 session, the Supreme Court overturned 95 percent of the Ninth Circuit cases heard by the Court.) This lack of Constitutional consistency discourages settlements and leads to unnecessary litigation. Ninth Circuit Judge, Diramuid O'Scannlain described the problem as follows: An appellate court must function as a unified body, and it must speak with a unified voice. It must maintain and shape a coherent body of law. . . . As the number of opinions increase, we judges risk losing the ability to keep track of precedents and the ability to know what our circuit's law is. In short, bigger is not better. The legislation that Senator Gorton and I introduce today is a sensible reorganization of the Ninth Circuit. The Northern Division of the Ninth Circuit would join Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho. This proposal reflects legislation I introduced in the last Congress which created a new Twelfth Circuit consisting of the States of the Northwest. Like my previous legislation, the Commission's report will go far in creating regional commonality and greater consistency and dependency in legal decisions. However, it is my strong suggestion that when the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings on their legislation, certain modifications be closely examined: 1. Elimination of the requirement that judges within a region are required to rotate to other regions of the Circuit; 2. Adjustment of the regional alignments to include Hawaii, the Mariana Islands and the Territory of Guam in the Northern Region; and 3. Shortening the period in which the Federal Judicial Center conducts a study of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ninth Circuit divisions from 8 years to 3 years. Mr. President, Congress has waited long enough to correct the problems of the Ninth Circuit. The 49 million residents of the Ninth Circuit are the persons that suffer. Many wait years before cases are heard and decided, prompting many to forego the entire appellate process. The Ninth Circuit has become a circuit where justice is not swift and not always served. Mr. President, we have known the problem of the Ninth Circuit for a long time. It's time to solve the problem. The Commission's recommendations, as reflected in our legislation, is a good first start. I hope we can resolve this issue this year.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask that the following report by the Congressional Budget Office on S. 2500 by printed in the Congressional Record for the information of all Members. The report follows: U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, October 14, 1998. Hon. Frank H. Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2500, a bill to protect the sanctity of contracts and leases entered into by surface patent holders with respect to coalbed methane gas. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Victoria V. Heid. Sincerely, June E. O'Neill, Director. Enclosure.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I concur with my colleagues. Implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments is creating a real need to develop clean alternative fuels. For example, of the 64 remaining U.S. coke batteries, 58 are subject to closure as a result of the Clean Air Act. The steel industry can either use limited capital to build new clean coking facilities or they can choose to import coke from China, which uses 50 year old highly pollutant technologies. Restoring the Section 29 credit to encourage cleaner coker technologies will greatly reduce emissions and will slow our increasing dependence on foreign coke, at the same time creating jobs in the United States in both the steel and coal mining industries. In addition, the United States has rich deposits of lignite and sub- bituminous coals. There are new technologies that can upgrade these coals to make them burn efficiently and economically, while at the same time significantly reducing air pollution. This is proven technology, but to make the development of this technology throughout the nation feasible, the Congress needs to provide tax incentives.